Extracted from:
Kozma, R. (in press). Comparative analysis of policies for ICT in
education. In J. Voogt and G. Knezek (Eds.) International handbook of
information technology in primary and secondary education. Springer:
New York.
Policy Recommendations
There are particular substantive recommendations that can help policymakers craft
particularly effective educational ICT policies.
Policy alignment
National ICT policies will have the greatest impact if they are aligned with other
strategic and operational policies. This alignment is of three sorts: strategicoperational
alignment, horizontal alignment, and vertical alignment. Alignment
between strategic and operational policies assures that ICT programs and projects
are directly tied to the nation’s goals and rationale. For example, strategic policies
that emphasize economic development should be matched by operational
programs that use ICT to develop new workforce skills, not just purchase new
equipment, and strategic policies that emphasize pedagogical reform should be
aligned with ICT training that provides teachers with new pedagogical skills, not
just new technology skills.
Horizontal alignment assures that ICT policies are consistent with other policies
within the education system. For example, changes in ICT policies can both
contribute to and benefit from corresponding changes in curriculum, pedagogy,
assessment, and teacher training, and it behoves ICT policymakers within the
ministry of education to coordinate their policymaking efforts with those in other
departments. More generally, policymaking efforts in the education ministry can
benefit from coordination with those in the ministries of economic planning,
telecommunications, labor, and rural development. Often policy coordination of
this sort requires the guidance of the highest-level policymaker, the minister of
education in the first instance and the prime minister in the latter. Some countries
constitute cross-ministry councils to guide and coordinate related policies with
shared goals.
Vertical alignment refers to the coordination of policies up and down structural
layers. That is, national policies should guide and be coordinated with those at the
state, provincial, or local level. This will assure that resources allocated at the
national level are appropriately applied at the state and local levels to have the
maximum impact on schools and classrooms.
Distributed policies
In some countries, educational policies may be the sole prerogative of the central
government. In these countries, ICT policy may be formulated as a discrete policy
statement within the ministry (department) of education, such as that in Singapore.
In other countries, it may be integrated into the overall national education policy,
such as that in Malaysia and Chile, or it may even be embedded in the national
telecommunications policy, such as in Egypt where the Ministry of Communications
and Information Technology leads the nation’s ICT-based Egypt Education Initiative,
in collaboration with the Ministries of Education and Higher Education (Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology, Egypt, 2006). This sort of policy
integration has the advantage of bringing more political weight and resources to
bear on the effort. But to have maximum impact within the education system, the
strategic and operational ICT policies need to be articulated in explicitly educational
terms within the Education Ministry.
On the other hand, many countries have a federal political structure or a
decentralized education system, where educational decision-making is vested in
the states, provinces, or local districts or villages. In these situations, much of the
discussion above applies to policymaking at the local levels. But the national
ministry or department can still play an important role. One possibility in these
cases is for national ICT policy to be strictly operational, providing resources that
support the general use of ICT, but make them available for use by local agencies
according to their own strategic policies. Alternatively, national strategic policy can
be formulated as a vision that guides local efforts, or it can be articulated in
general terms to advance important countrywide economic and social goals, while
leaving the local agencies to craft operational policies that accomplish these goals.
Policy implementation
There are often huge gaps between policies and the changes in classroom practice
that they are intended to affect (Cohen & Hill, 2001). Policies are articulated, but
teachers are often not aware of the specifics of these policies or their goals. In
turn, policies are implemented as programs, but often these programs are not
effective in achieving change at the classroom level. A study by Cohen and Hill
(2001) found that policies were most effectively implemented in classrooms where
teachers had extended opportunities to learn policy-related materials. Rather than
general reviews of policy statements or discussions of their implications, the most
effective teacher-development experiences were concrete, content-specific, and
instructionally useable practices directly connected to policy. Consequently, ICT
policy implementation can best be assured when teacher professional development
includes specific skills and tasks that incorporate ICT into their everyday classroom
practices and explicitly connect these practices to ICT and broader education
policies.
Private-public partnerships
The introduction and widespread use of ICT is an expensive proposition for any
country. An important resource in this effort can be private-public partnerships.
These partnerships can involve the Ministry of Education, along with universities,
private NGOs, or private corporations. For example, the Ministry of Education in
South Korea entered into an agreement with Intel to train a majority of the
country’s 400,000 teachers, principals, and professors in coordination with its ICT
master plan (Intel, 2005). The World Economic Forum and its sponsors support ICTbased
education reform in Jordan, Egypt, India, and Palestine
(http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gei/index.htm). Related to this effort, both
Intel and World Links Arab Region (an NGO) are training teachers in Jordan, as part
of that country’s master plan. These partnerships can be particularly important in
developing countries, where the demands for resources are significant and the
available funds scarce. For example, the Telefonica OCT Chile supported the
Enlaces program by donating telephone lines and unlimited Internet connections to
schools, along with free email accounts for teachers and students (Hinostroza, et
al., 2003).
Outcome-oriented policies, programs, and evaluations
The use of ICT in education constitutes a significant investment, and this requires a
significant return in terms of learners served and the number of learners that
become productive workers and citizens. Strategic policies should not only offer
sweeping visions and specific goals for how technology can advance economic,
social, and educational development, and operational policies should not only
provide programs and resources, but they should also describe how these visions
and resources will impact the educational system with measurable outcomes.
Policies and programs should call for indicators and monitoring and evaluation
plans by which these outcomes can be tracked (Wagner, et al., 2005). Both process
and outcome measures should be used to monitor the progress of policies and
programs, and provide information to policy makers that can be used to revise and
refine policies and programs. The implementation of monitoring and evaluation
components will increase the likelihood that national ICT education policies and
programs will indeed be implemented and benefit students, teachers, schools, the
economy, and society, in general.
Resources
Policymakers can benefit, not only from these recommendations, but from a large
collection of resources that can aid them in policy formulation and implementation.
Among these are works that list the current ICT policies of other countries, such as
Cross-national information and communication technology policies and practices in
education (Plomp, Anderson, Law, & Quale, 2003, in press) and the Meta-survey on
the use of technologies in education in Asia and the Pacific (UNESCO, 2003).
UNESCO also has a policymakers toolkit for ICT in education
(
http://www.infodev.org/en/Project.11.html). And the infoDev program at the World
Bank has a variety of knowledge maps, guides, and handbooks
(
http://www.infodev.org/en/Topic.4d.html) that can be most helpful. With these
resources, policymakers can begin to craft and refine policies that can help ICT
deliver on its promises.
References
Cohen, D. & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hinostroza, J. E., Hepp, P., Cox, C., & Guzman, A. (2003). National policies and
practices on ICT in education: Chile. In T. Plomp, R. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale
(Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policies and
practices in education (pp. 97-114). Greenwich, Connecticut: IPA.
Intel. (2005). 3 million teachers help students learn to develop 21st century skills.
Retrieved on January 2, 2006, from
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20051116edu.htm.
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Egypt. (2006). Egyptian
Education Initiative. Retrieved December 30, 2006, from
http://www.mcit.gov.eg/ICT_Learning_1.aspx.
Plomp, T. Anderson, R., Law, N., & Quale, A. (Eds.). (2003). Cross-national
information and communication technology policies and practices in education.
Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Plomp, T., Anderson, R., Law, N. & Quale, A. (Eds.). (in press). Cross-national ICT
policies and practices in education (Rev. ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
UNESCO. (2003). Meta-survey on the use of technologies in education in Asia and
the Pacific. Paris: UNESCO.
Wagner, D., Day, R., James, T., Kozma, R., Miller, J., & Unnwin, T. (2005). Monitoring
and evaluation of ICT in education projects: A handbook for developing countries.
Washington, DC: infoDev, World Bank.