Naace response to DCSF consultation on Home Access

1 Evidence suggests that access to, and appropriate use of technology in the home benefits all family members. Should this access and use be encouraged by government?

Naace strongly endorses the view that Government should be encouraging and providing support for this initiative, given its commitment to a reduction in child poverty and to the growth of the knowledge economy. A good education is a key factor in changing life circumstances. Children between birth and 16 years spend less than 25% of their waking hours in school so a positive and suitably equipped home environment is vital for the individual child. At the same time, while the principal focus must remain on the pupil, Naace believes DCSF is right to expect that the whole family can benefit from this initiative, partly by being able to play a better informed part in their children's education and also by having access themselves to the online services which an increasing proportion of the population now takes for granted. Naace's sees these two dimensions as not merely compatible, but actively reinforcing each other.

2 There is also evidence that suggests that a child’s level of attainment, and breadth of educational experience, may increase as a result of their appropriate use of technology, including in the home. Do you agree appropriate use of technology in the home can achieve this?

While ongoing study is still needed, Naace finds the picture emerging from current research credible and convincing, and it is consistent with the experience of many of our members working at a local level. Since technology is perceived as "the way things are done" in so many activities which people value, it is not surprising that engagement in learning, personal confidence and convenient access to resources all play their part in improving standards of attainment.
Having said this, Naace would like to stress that attainment should not be interpreted narrowly in terms of performance in tests and examinations, important as these are for the life chances of children and young people. Equally importantly, technology can open avenues to nurture other kinds of talent and creativity. These are the life blood for individual and organisational success and a significant factor in our future economic prosperity.
Naace also emphasises that "breadth of educational experience" should be interpreted imaginatively. It should, of course, include access to the astonishing range of resources for learning, both formal and informal, that the worldwide web in particular can bring into the home as well as the classroom. In addition to this, other kinds of online tools and services, with a focus on collaboration and communication, offer opportunities for approaches to learning which are quite different from what was available in or out of school in the past.

3 There are risks involved with providing access to the internet for families. Some may be more vulnerable than others to these risks and dangers. It is intended to provide clear minimum safety standards for home access solutions for families and guidance to parents so they can support their children to have a safe internet experience. Do you agree that encouraging safe family internet use should be a priority for government even if this raises the cost of home access solutions?

Naace subscribes unhesitatingly to the five outcomes of Every Child Matters, the first of which, of course, is concerned with personal safety. Naace has responded to earlier consultations with e-safety components, particularly on Staying Safe and the Byron Review. We hope our views on e-safety are already part of the Government's thinking.
We suspect that the additional costs of promoting safer internet use in families will be only a marginal element of the overall budget, and Naace considers that we should not shrink from making safety a priority.
This should not necessarily mean that it is appropriate to place in homes a computer with the same restrictions typically found in many schools. The aim must be to provide a home computer to aid learning and participation, not a school computer in the home. Whether a local or national agency is involved in the provision of the equipment, it would be unfortunate if concerns about their accountability in a case of misuse resulted in an inappropriately restrictive solution being provided. Some limited technical e-safety measures will be needed, and it will be equally if not more important to provide educational support to help families use their system safely and confidently.
The area of e-safety is an important one for all families, and not merely for the disadvantaged. In this respect, disadvantaged families should be treated as part of the mainstream.

4 a) Given the evidence about the benefits of home access, should government encourage all parents to provide access to the internet in the home for their children?

Naace's underpinning aim is to advance education through appropriate use of ICT. As champions for the use of technology in learning at home and in school, we naturally support any efforts by Government to ensure that parents understand what a difference ICT can make to their children's lives, and this includes access to the internet. As we have stated elsewhere, a wide range of internet services can play a part in supporting and extending learning. Any campaign should illustrate to parents that educational content from the worldwide web is only one component in the internet repertoire of learners and teachers.

4 b) Whilst government might encourage all parents to provide home access, it has been proposed that any financial assistance should be made available only to families from the lowest income groups to provide a computer (or other similar device) and an ongoing internet connection. Do you agree that any government funding should be targeted at the most disadvantaged families?

Clearly the resources should be targeted at those children and young people who will never easily get access to technology in the way that the great majority do. These will usually, though not necessarily exclusively, be those from the most impoverished families. And it will not simply be enough to target the most disadvantaged with the bare minimum of resources, if we wish to use technology to change life chances significantly. We know from experience in schools and elsewhere that the unsupported provision of technology equipment is at best only a first step; it is necessary to provide users with immediate opportunities to participate in activities which exploit it. While we hope that more and more staff in schools will be designing appropriate tasks which allow pupils to take advantage of ICT beyond the classroom, Naace suggests that a small suite of ICT-based exemplar activities should be part of any home access package, so that family members can experience the potential of the equipment straight away, without depending on their school, where priorities and timescales may be different and where capacity may be an issue.
As in the consultation document, we have pointed out opportunities, in the area of guidance for example, for making part of the package a universal benefit to families, and we feel that it will be important to promote the perception that elements of this investment are for all learners and their families.

4 c) If financial support is provided for low income and disadvantaged families which covers all or part of the cost of a home access solution, should these families own the devices that they may contribute towards or should they lease/borrow from a central agency or other organisation?

Leasing may have some practical advantages – e.g. for maintenance and refresh - and there may be opportunities for economies of scale through integration with eLearning Foundation, Computers for Pupils and other schemes. At present, Naace is neutral on the specific issue. We would broadly favour a scheme which provides for the largest number of families at the lower end of the income scale without asking for a contribution to the costs. At the same time we recognise that there are successful schemes in areas of disadvantage where parents "buy in" in all senses of the word, and we applaud their achievements.
While these are important decisions, Naace considers that whatever supply mechanism is chosen, a sense of “ownership” is key. Pupils and their families must feel that the computer is exclusively theirs if they are to benefit fully from it. Accordingly Naace fully supports the statement in paragraph 3.4 of the consultation document: Users should feel ‘ownership’ of their personal educational experiences and the home access solution.

5 Given the evidence that home access to the internet has a positive impact on educational attainment, should all parents be encouraged to view technology in the home as an important part of their children’s education?

The simple answer is Yes. But, as we have already said in response to question 2, it is necessary to be clear about what we mean by attainment. There is evidence that performance in tests and examinations can improve among pupils who have regular access to ICT, whether at school or at home. Naace values this, but we are keen to emphasise that ICT provides tools for creativity which allow children and young people to produce and share original multifaceted work of which they can be proud. ICT introduces new ways of learning and collaborating which should be available to all. It is also producing new kinds of citizen who use the digital world to participate in civic affairs.
Naace is pleased that the consultation document refers to the UK Children Go Online project, which examined in detail the way children and young people use ICT in and out of school. It describes not so much a digital divide as a digital spectrum where some but not all people with home access to ICT use it as part of their learning and civic life. This is another area where all families need encouragement to exploit ICT in order to benefit their children's learning, and not just the disadvantaged.

6 Government is keen that the opportunities for learning in the home are maximised for all pupils without placing undue burdens on the education profession. What steps should be taken to ensure that any burden is kept to a minimum?

Broadly speaking the scheme is in line with the current direction of travel of many schools. In some schools already, there is an expectation that pupils will be able to begin or continue ICT-based tasks at home, and special provision is made for those without home access. For that reason, widening access should actually reduce the burden on staff in this group of schools. In other schools, home use of ICT is currently seen as an optional extra and we share the view in paragraph 3.6 of the consultation document that modernising of policy and practice is needed. In these schools, while catering for home access pupils may be considered an undue burden by some staff, the scheme should encourage them to address issues which they need to embrace anyway. Naace is pleased to see that this initiative takes explicit account of the learning platform strategy.
It is likely that pupils and parents will look to the school for assistance if they encounter problems when using their equipment. There is a danger that unreasonable requests may add to the work of school staff if support arrangements for families are not adequate, easily accessible and clear. Beyond this, schools will need clear protocols to protect the work-life balance of their staff and to manage the expectations of pupils and parents. Nevertheless, change management issues cannot be avoided and will involve the culture of the workplace and not merely ICT training for the workforce, important though this is.

7 It is felt that a third party organisation may have a key part to play in ensuring consistent national quality of helpline, applications and payments services to families. This would support schools and colleges in delivering the aims of this programme. This would also ensure that maximum value for money and other efficiencies are achieved. What type of organisation/body should be responsible for these functions?

In our response to question 6 we warned of possible implications for schools if support arrangements are inadequate. National helplines do not always have a good track record in handling people who are uncomfortable with public services. In Naace's view, this is not an area where corners can be cut. While it is desirable that administrative burdens on schools and local authorities are kept to a minimum, they will inevitably be involved in the implementation of the programme. Any national organisation providing these services will need to have a good understanding of how the education sector works in order to communicate effectively with personnel working locally. If the national option goes ahead, Naace recommends some initial consultation with school and local authority representatives once the organisation is selected or even during the selection process. However, before this decision is taken, Naace believes that local support providers, both in local authorities and the private sector, should have an opportunity to put forward their views about possible models of administration and support.
Ideally quality assurance should be the responsibility of the service provider rather than diverting resources into a separate monitoring or evaluative body. In response to question 10, we have raised the possibility of a collegiate approach from companies contributing to the programme. If this could be achieved, monitoring of quality might be a collective responsibility undertaken by all the partners, potentially proving more cost-effective and responsive to the needs of the families involved.

8 There may be an important strategic role for Local Authorities, in supporting schools in their locality, to ensure maximum benefit for learners and their families. Is it appropriate for Local Authorities to be requested to undertake this strategic role?

A substantial and influential section of the Naace membership work in local authorities. They will fully support the aims of the programme and will be keen to see it succeed. They will understand the progress schools in their authority have made in implementing online learning platform services and they will usually have a view about the extent to which ICT is embedded in the work of their schools, and they could assist schools to join up this aspect of their ICT work with other activities through the Self-Review Framework. They may have some experience of ICT-based family learning in areas of disadvantage and could provide or co-ordinate initial training. Given appropriate assurances on data and child protection, they may even be able to point to information sources with details of children and young people targeted by the programme. This would include looked after children, young carers and children for whom it will not be easy for their parents to provide the same level of opportunity as others.
In the era of Every Child Matters, a strategic role would align well with local authority responsibilities for the well-being of children. Plainly, ICT support services in local authorities could make a significant contribution to the success of the programme. There would be dismay if this expectation was not accompanied by sufficient funding to allow staff time to be committed to it at an adequate level. Existing programmes rarely leave authorities with spare capacity. In response to question 7 we have already advocated early consultation with local service providers, including local authorities. We hope that a range of authorities have made their views known on possible strategic roles through the current consultation process; if not, DCSF should take steps to ascertain their stance.

9 It is proposed that a list of equipment, which meets minimum functional requirements, is provided to guide acquisition of appropriate technology. Is this the right approach to take?

What exactly is meant by "a list of equipment" in this context is not sufficiently clear. Does this refer to specific products or generic devices such as a laptop or desktop computer? Paragraph 3.4 of the consultation document sets out the desired outcomes of the programme in terms of "functional expectations". This will strike Naace members as a more appropriate starting point for procurement than a list of equipment. This is not to say that technical standards are not important, and with fast-moving technological demands, it will be important for families to be provided with equipment which has an up-to-date specification at the point of acquisition.
The consultation document refers to children with disabilities or special educational needs, and this recognition is welcome. We would also like to remind DCSF of the needs of children who may have a particular talent, in art or music for example, who would also benefit from specialised equipment which would probably be provided by more affluent parents.

10 It is recognised that the technology industry has a role to play in enabling the sustainable success of home access. What role or functions is it appropriate for government to expect industry to undertake?

In many ways it will serve the interests of the technology industry well if they contribute to the success of the programme. By supporting it, the industry would be helping to foster growth in the market for its products and services. A wide range of companies from this sector sponsor Naace's activities, partly to maintain their profile in the world of education and partly as a sign of their commitment to the development of a skilled workforce. It is reasonable for DCSF to expect the industry to be generous in providing advice and information as the programme is planned and implemented, whether or not they see themselves as potential suppliers.
Naace would like DCSF to explore with companies the possibility of providing an "ICT mentor" for each family who benefits from the programme. This might involve a commitment to maintain a relationship with the family for the first year of the scheme. It would not supplant a helpline and technical support service; we envisage it more as a way of encouraging children and their families to reflect on their use of the technology and to explore new possibilities. Contributing to and supporting a volunteer mentoring team would allow companies of every size to play a worthwhile part in the programme at little cost.
We understand that companies survive and thrive through competition. Nevertheless, DCSF might encourage a collegiate approach in which flexibility and cooperation help to ensure a seamless approach to the hardware, software, internet access, training and technical support which are likely to form the basis of a home access scheme truly reflecting what most parents aspire to - doing the best for the child.

11 Please use the space below for any other comments.

Naace is the professional association for those who are concerned with advancing education through the appropriate use of information and communications technology (ICT). Naace was established in 1984 and has become the key influential professional association for those working in ICT in education. Our response to this consultation is based on the views of members in schools, local authorities,independent consultancies and suppliers of ICT services to education.
Naace has also participated directly in the Home Access Taskforce.