Upload
catriona-oates
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
1/18
Policy Assignment EDU 964
Identify and analyse a specified current policy priority; examine
the drivers for change which led to the development of this
policy, the theories of leadership and management which are
relevant to its implementation, and raise appropriate and
critical issues relating to the impact or potential impact of the
policy.
Glow: A Policy Analysis
One policy has been dominating the Scottish education environment since 2002.
Having been initiated by the previous governing administration, Curriculum for
Excellence (CfE) has been hailed as "one of the most ambitious programmes of
educational change ever undertaken in Scotland" (Leaning and Teaching
Scotland a 2007). The scope of the undertaking is extensive, since it attempts to
effect change within a supposedly coherent model of curriculum designed to
address the entire school age range from 3 18; unlike previous, more
piecemeal reforms which targeted specific stages within this range (Standard
Grade, 5-14 or Higher Still for example).
According to Learning and Teaching Scotland, the lead organisation charged by
the Scottish Government with the authoring, management and development of
this policy, its origins seem to have come from the national debate on
education, a nation-wide attempt in 2002 by the then Labour administration to
seek the views of the public on what matters to them in terms of education in
Scotland (Learning and Teaching Scotland b, 2009). The national debate gave
rise to a set of key priorities (The Scottish Executiveb, 2003) which offered a
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
2/18
starting point for the new curriculum policy. The new curriculum policy appears
to have a running mate, in the form of Glow; the national intranet for Scotlands
education. Interestingly, there is an absence of reference to the use of
technologies in education within these key priorities, in spite of the fact that
much of the rhetoric around this parallel policy development, claims that CfE and
GLOW are interconnected (Learning and Teaching Scotland c , 2010).This begs
the question, is this a marriage made in heaven or are these two uneasy
bedfellows? Fascinating though it would be to explore the dynamics and tensions
of this relationship, it would require a separate paper entirely to do so. Given
constraints of time and length, it is therefore only on GLOW, the technological
strand of the CfE policy that I would like to focus for the purposes of this
assignment.
GLOW is the worlds first national intranet for education. It started life as the
Scottish Schools Digital Network (SSDN) and its ambitions were impressive: it
aimed to offer a broadband network which interconnects every school (including
teachers, pupils and parents), education authority and appropriate national
agency in Scotland. Its purpose is to offer complex models of educational
collaboration, and a mechanism by which Scottish education can begin to
transform itself to exploit the pedagogical riches the new information age has to
offer (National Intranet Draft Specification paper, 2002). This is further
elaborated in the following extract from the Draft Specification paper for the
National Intranet & Interconnect for Scottish Schools (2002):
The national intranetwill help to breakdown barriers to learning that exist and
have always existed. Geographical barriers will be minimised by the ability to
communicate in real time with people across the country and across the globe.
Social barriers will belowered by the facility to bring young people together from
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
3/18
all walks of life. Pedagogical barriers will be eased by the immense capacity that
the intranet will provide for sharing of practice, ideas and experience. And
professional barriers can be further tackled by linking educational databases
with those in other educational domains, such as healthcare, social work,
childrens services and central government. (Glow; draft specification, 2002)
Like Curriculum for Excellence, then, it is wide-ranging and ambitious in its
scope. Considering the above, Glow could be construed as a product (it is a
tangible, albeit virtual construct), but it is much more appropriate to interpret it
as a process policy, since because of its very nature, it can only exist as a policy,
or entity in its use and implementation and is organic in design; furthermore, as
a policy construct relating to technology, it will be subject to almost constant
change. Its designing principles, i.e. that it
will serve teaching and learning primarily
will offer universal access
will be fully accessible
will be platform independent
will have open standards and be extensible
will be safe and secure
will require a single log on to all internal applications
(SSDN Statement of Requirements) are consistent with a progressive ideology,
social democratic values of equality of opportunity and a pluralistic approach to
partnership (Trowler, 1998) in that several agencies were involved in its
conception, and many, many more in its implementation. I will come back to this
issue and further develop later , but as far as official policy goes, Glow and
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
4/18
Curriculum for Excellence are interconnected they are one and the same thing:
Glow is not a separate development from CfE but a core element of support
driving it forward (Learning and Teaching Scotland a, 2010). However, Glow
does differ from CfE in many ways which will be explored in the course of this
paper, starting with their respective origins. Unlike the new curriculum policy
which borrowed structure and other elements from elsewhere, Glow does appear
to be a unique innovation in educational terms.
CfE, on the other hand, makes no particular claim to be progressive, but rather
transfomational (Learning and Teaching Scotland b 2009) in nature. Yet in
many ways it represents a continuation of past practice. In Priestley, M &
Humes, W, (2010) the authors argue that an ahistorical lack of reference in its
latter developments to antecedents, and a similar atheoretical lack of reference
to any model of curriculum design, potentially constrain the vision and
aspirations of the earlier developments in the policy and reduces freedom and
creativity of teachers. The authors compare its curricular areas to those in
England in 1904 and 1988. The inclusion of RME, technology, Gaelic and the
cross-curricular entitlements of health & wellbeing, literacy and numeracy, and
the loss of housewifery/manual represent the only significant curricular
changeover the course of a century ; six other traditional curricular areas retain
their identity at the heart of learning, namely English, Maths, Science, Social
Science, Modern Language, and Expressive Arts. The structure of the curriculum
also appears to be characterised by curriculum homogeneity (Priestley, 2002)
bearing a marked resemblence to similar curriculum frameworks in New Zealand,
England and Wales which are similarly composed of sequential levels, divided
into outcomes which are in turn subdivided into achievement objectives. While
there is much more to be said in about curriculum development in the context of
globalisation, and this will be considered later in this essay, this particular
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
5/18
example indicates a fairly conservative approach to policy borrowing since the
trend seems to be operating within English speaking countries only. There
seems to be a tendency within English speaking, colonial and former-colonial
nation-states to seek reaffirmament from each other, possibly due to a linguistic
insecurity, which may be operating as a barrier to looking for similar
comparative information elswhere. This is purely speculative, and further
research would be necessary to substantiate any definitive claims in this regard.
It should be noted, however, that because of this, comparisons in the area of
policy maybe consequently limited in their scope.
Drivers for Change (and policy origins)
The problem setting moment, (Trowler, 1998), the intial spark that started the
Glow fire would therefore be the need to develop the necessary technological
skills in the current generation of learners; an initiative which could be could be
construed as a process of controlled empowerment. . Consistent with Trowler
(1998) this need was identified and acted upon by Government, and involved a
multi agency approach, including both educational and technological expertise.
Glow has its origins in the National Grid for Learning Scotland (NGfL Scotland),
which started in 1998 (SSDN Statement of Requirements). The National Grid for
Learning was an initiative designed to ensure that the educational benefits of ICT
are available to all sectors of education and beyond and was underpinned by the
three components of infrastructure, training and content. (Scottish Executive a,
2000). There is obvious divergence in the evolution of one single policy within
two countries here: the NGfL in England having been closed down in 2006,
seems to have evolved in a refractive way to become a separate collection of
regional National Education Networks (NEN) (see fig 1) which do not appear to
be interconnected. Glow apparently belongs to the NEN, but there are no obvious
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
6/18
signposts or indicators to it either on the National Glow site, or after log in. The
NGfL Scotlands evolution into what is now GLOW seems to have taken a more
innovative and coherent course in that unlike the fragmented National Education
Network, it has provided a shared platform for participation from every local
authority in the country.
Fig 1(The National Education Network)
Since the initial launch of the NGfL Scotland there has been a proliferation of
technological devices appropriate to the classroom (clickers; netbooks; handheld
devices such as Nintendo DS; interactive white boards [IWB], desktop computers
to name but a few) and the simultaneous lowering costs of these instruments
and more has lead to a general increase in available technological hardware
which can be used in schools.Although the NGfL Scotland development was
given a fairly short expansion time, (having being instigated by the Government
in 1998), it was thought that it brought about a penetration of hardware in
schools which sufficiently enhanced the baseline provision of ICT in Scotlands
schools. (SSDN Statement of Requirements). A further injection of funding for
ICT training for teachers form ther New Opportunities Fund (NOF), contributed to
the perceived readiness within the educational establishment for moving on to
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
7/18
the next stage in technological advancement in schools. (SSDN Statement of
Requirements) The initial developments in Glow date from 2002 , so the scope
for development of the NGfL and its subsequent influence on the future policy
such as Glow, although not insignificant, was limited in terms of time allowed.
The NGfL Scotland served as Glows policy trailblazer.
Globalisation as a driver for change
In contrast to their disparate beginnings, the policies of Glow and CfE have
shared roots in globalisation: Curriculum for Excellence itself has many
indicators which point towards increasing globalisation within the context of
education as a driver for policy change. Levin, (in Priestley, 2002), identified six
separate but interlinked themes common to school systems in many countries:
1. The tendency for educational change to be framed in economic terms, for
example to development of human resources
2. Increasing criticism of education and training: described elsewhere as the
discourses of derision (Ball, 1990)
3. The tendency to demand improvements without a concurrent increase in
resources
4. The promotion of educational change through changes in governance
5. A marketization of education
6. An increased emphasis on standards, accountability and testing.
These tendencies, as played out across different nation-states, support the
globalised policy discourses of travelling policy as identified in Lingard and
Ozga (2007) and they go beyond the level of nation to occupy the global
education policy field ( Lingard, et al 2005 in Lingard and Ozga, 2007). They
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
8/18
support the common agendas across many nation states highlighted in
Lingard, B & Ozga, J( 2007) such as the reshaping of educational purposes to
develop human captial for the information age and for national economic
competitiveness. While some, but not all of these tendencies can be
identified within CfE (3 for example: the Scottish Government allocated extra
CPD days in session 2009-10 to help facilitate policy implementation), it is fair
to say that the educational purposes of CfE (successful learners; confident
individuals; effective contributors and responsible citizens: Learning and
Teaching Scotlanda 2009) are grounded firmly in the ideal of an economically
viable, fit for purpose in an information age, educated individual, who, it is
argued by Holligan and Humes (Glasgow Herald, 2009) will serve the
interests of the business sector rather than any broader conception of the
public good. This is an area where the linkage between the two policies
becomes more transparent.
Glow as a policy has an obvious and direct contribution to make to the
development of the skills these young people will need as operators in the
information age envisioned above, but one which is almost entirely
dependent on the disposition and ability of teachers to mediate that policy to
the young people for whom it is intended. It is on the issue of policy
mediation, implementation and management I would now like to focus.
Implementation of Glow
As has been previously stated, Glow is a world-first: an innovative, process
policy, which only comes into existence if teachers implement and enact upon
it, and mediate it for their learners; unlike CfE which will exist in the tangible
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
9/18
form of the curricular area policy folders as distributed by Learning and
Teaching Scotland (even if no enactment is made upon it!).
Many factors have influenced the implementation of Glow, and it might now
be timely to consider the practical scope and implications of it as a national,
computerised linked up system before going on to analyse these in more
detail. The projected numbers involved are impressive: all 32 local
authorities; 3000 schools; 53 000 teachers; 800 000 learners; teacher
education institutions and their students; other appropriate agencies such as
the British Council, SQA; (SSDN statement of requirements) etc. In the future
it is envisaged that parents will also be invited to join. Each individual as
listed above is to be issued with their own log in and with then be linked in a
nation-wide virtual community where work and information can be shared.
Given the nature of this policy, its dimensions, the numbers involved, the
geography of Scotland and the change it could potentially effect, it would be
unrealistic to expect the implementation of Glow to be trouble- free.
The processes of management and implementation of Glow were based on a
top-down, cascade model, comparable to that described in Trowler (1998, ch
4), although it could also be identified with Schons proliferation of centres
model (Kelly, 2004) since local management and leadership at authority level
in every area of Scotland was a key feature of the process. The policy career
of Glow would follow a similar path to that based on Saunders (1986) and
Reynolds and Saunders (1987) in Trowler (1998); moving from the national
centre (having been contested and negotiated at LTS by initiators,
stakeholders, Government officials, etc) to regional centres (the local
authorities), to local centres ( schools), to the classroom. Implementation of
the policy occurs differently at all these stages and is dependent on of
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
10/18
teachers and educational leaders as key agents of change involved at each
one; how they engage with and enact upon it. LTS appointed a Glow team:
leaders and practitioners who could operationalise Glow through leadership,
training and support for local authorities. Leadership overtly sought to create
and sustain commitment to Glow (Trowler, 1998) through an extensive
programme of policy advocacy; local authorities were encouraged to sign
up to Glow; each local authority appointed a number of Glow mentors, as
lead- agents for the policy. Leadership therefore was devolved via the Glow
mentors, who were offered training and support from the national GLOW
team. A pluralistic approach was encouraged at this stage with regard to how
the policy was enacted: local authorities decided how best to implement the
policy in their schools, for example, some authorities identified a small
number of pilot schools to lead implementation; some, (like the authority I
work for) adopted a gradual, phase-in of schools, whereby log in details were
issued to small numbers of schools at intervals until all staff could participate.
Equally, a blanket distribution of log ins to all staff from the outset could have
been adopted as a method of implementation, but there is no available
information to confirm this method of roll out may indeed have been
deployed. Conversely, of course, there were some authorities who contested
the policy rigorously at this stage through resistance to the sign-up invitation,
slowing down the process of implementation, however all 32 authorities are
now signed up.
The policy refraction on the development pathway of Glow was therefore
complex, supporting the idea of it being an evolutionary, organic policy
process. Perhaps as has been stated previously, the greatest degree of
influence on the implementation process is arguably classroom teachers, as
they hold the capacity to operationalise the policy values (Bell & Stevenson,
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
11/18
2006) in its intended environment, and it is in the classroom where teachers,
with varying levels of enthusiasm, skill and interest, attempt to mediate the
policy that perhaps this policy has been contested to the greatest extent.
Interestingly, Glow seems to conform well to what Merton, in Brain et al,
(2006) suggest is the means by which teachers may mediate a policy and a
form of practice by which it may be achieved. In this analogy, CfE would
represent the goals of the policy the purposes that apply to all involved. In
this regard, the partnership between Glow and CfE might be construed as
working well: one providing the vehicle for delivery of the other. There is also
consistency however with his assertion that even when the goals are
accepted, there is wide variation in the willingness to use the means, as
illustrated by reluctance at authority or individual level to engage.
Reid, (Brain, K; Reid,I; Boyes, L C, 2006) based a typology of stances adopted
by teachers in relation to policy implementation on ideas developed by
Merton, and it would be useful to consider these adaptive stances in relation
to Glow. They are:
Conformist; (accepting of both goals and implementation).
Ritualist; (rejects goals and accepts implementation).
Innovative; ( accepting of goals and rejectsand substitues implementation).
Transformative; (rejects and substitues both goals and implementation).
Retreatist; (rejects both goals and implementation)
(Kennedy, A. Adapted from Brain et al. (2006); Reid (1978); and Merton (1957) ,
2010)
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
12/18
Although there is great encouragement to integrate Glow into learning and
teaching experiences, teachers in their classrooms are free to accept or reject it
depending on many factors: their access to hardware; their capacity and
enthusiasm to use ICT, and perhaps most importantly, their evaluation of its
usefulness to their practice. As well as teacher disposition, there are other structural
and cultural characteristics which will influence a teachers motivation to use ICT.
Tondeur et al (2009) in Wallace, 2010, identified that educational change was a
complex process that is influenced by a number of factors including:
A teachers individual beliefs concerning the purpose of ICT
A teachers skills and knowledge of ICT
The vision of the school management concerning ICT
Resources made available to support ICT use.
Recent research (Wallace, 2010) suggests that many teachers have adopted the
retreatist stance with regard to Glow. Wallace (2010) identifies a correlation
between contructivist teacher beliefs and use of technology for teaching and
learning purposes. This suggests a related improved engagement with the policy
on the part of constructivist-minded teachers. However, as far as policy
implementation at whole school level goes, she claims the majority of teachers
do not feel that their school has a clear sense of direction for how GLOW could
be used to enhance student learning, and states that at present uncertainty
exists amongst all teachers as to its purpose. There is also the danger that some
teachers (and leaders) may engage with the policy for administrative purposes
only: tracking and monitoring learner progress, for example, subscribing to a
more managerialist agenda of accountability, and many may not engage at all.
Of course many teachers have successfully engaged with Glow and are using it
to enhance teaching and learning in their settings (Learning and Teaching
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
13/18
Scotland d, 2009), but there is a question to be answered in how to activate the
non-technologically conversant teacher voice, if most of the focus for discussion
of Glow is on-line. There is a danger of those who do engage enthusiastically with
the policy being over-represented in discussions around it, on account of their
attitude to, and comptence with ICT. If social media provide the fora for the
debate, those who do not use these tools can become excluded from it. Conlon,
(2008) suggests this creates an echo-chamber effect, resonating only the
positive experiences of adopters among themselves.
Impact of Glow
There is as yet, little research on the impact of Glow in schools, although there
are encouraging signs that this may improve with the emerging research by
Wallace (2010) and other emerging technology-pedagogy focussed research
projects like for example Edonis (Noble, 2008). In addition, Richards, (2008)
carried out a small classroom-based anaylsis of pupil performance in standard
grade biology using Glow and found that attainment improved with regular use
of Glow. Richards does however qualify her findings against the scale of the
finances of the project and the paucity of research into the impact of ICT
generally.
Further to this, more recently in her blog, Richards compares the policy to the
Emperors New Clothes (Richards, 2010), claiming responses to her opinion
piece in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland, (TESS) substantiate her
hypothesis that in spite of the positive gains she found in her own classroom,
there is little use of GLOW to enhance learning and teaching in any meaningful
sustained way. She also raises criticisms of Glows reliability and functionality;
both of which are crucial to its implementation. A further criticism she makes
which has also been sporadically exercising the media, is the issue of
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
14/18
accountability in justifying the considerable amount of public funds involved, and
this issue is also explored in Conlon (2008).
A further criticism Conlon (2008) makes is that the discourse surrounding Glow is
focused exclusively on the benefits to be derived from it; it has been one-sided in
nature and fails to take account of the opportunity costs involved. This one-
sidedness he attributes to the fact that the stakes have been raised so high
around Glow that talk of risks and threats become unmentionable. He claims the
missing voice in the discourse is that of the teacher, a view substantiated in
Richards (2010) and he sees Glow as a strongly managerialist policy. His
interpretation of it focuses mainly on its administrative functions which he sees
as harnessing data, for the purposes of accountability and standardisation across
schools. In this way, Glow could be seen as a policy by numbers (Lingard and
Ozga, 2007), the data stored and gathered on it constituting a new form of
technology of governance. However this view fails in any way to take into
account other pedagogical aspects of Glow, notably its potential for collaboration
and such as the collaborative learning opportunities it offers. Glow encourages
multiple versions of collaboration; at one to one or class to class level, and the
potential learning opportunities within this one aspect are significant. Conlons
view of collaboration in the classroom appears to be limited to groups of pupils
either clustered round computer terminals, or paradoxically, working individually.
The more expanded view of learning being planned and executed collaboratively
off line, then shared in Glow with a wider audience is missing in this
interpretation.
Of course, it is difficult to anticipate adjustments in policy which may have
impact on future development, particularly when technology is core to the policy
itself, on account of its rapidly changing nature. It is fair to say however, that
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
15/18
since leadership change at the end of 2009 there has been a more consultative
ethos to Glow, as characterised by surveys and invitations to participate in
ongoing debates such #Glowbetter (Glow National site 2010), giving teacher
voice a chance to be heard. Crowdsourcing, the practice of inviting mass
participation in debate via web 2.0 tools such as twitter or facebook has been
identified as a favoured modus operandi of Andrew Brown (Glasgow Herald,
2010) the new head of Glow, which will, if carried through have an impact on the
consultative evolution of the policy.
Future impact of Glow will be difficult to predict, but its potential, if the discourse
around it is to be believed, is significant. Research on technology in learning
more generally suggests that it does provide small, but significant increases in
learning when implemented with fidelity and accompanied by appropriate
pedagogical shifts (Lemke, Coughlin, & Reifneider, 2009), reinforcing the notion
of a sense of purpose being key to Glows success, as identified by Wallace,
(2010).
In conclusion, one fact however remains undeniably central to this policy; in
spite of the not inconsiderable amount of funding and extensive degree of policy
advocacy that has occurred around Glow, its impact will be minimal without the
willingness of teachers to engage with it.
A very simple, clear and incisive observation was made of Glow recently by a
colleague in my personal learning network on twitter:" Glow is only as good as
you want to make it" #glowbetter #glowstories mclaughlin_aj (Friday 16th April
via twitter).The same could be said of any attempt to analyse, understand and
implement any policy initiative in our current times.
Bibliography
8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
16/18
(n.d.). Retrieved from The National Education Network: http://www.nen.gov.uk/
Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Educational Policy: Process, Themes and Impact.
London and New York: Routeledge.
Brain, K; Reid,I; Boyes, L C. (2006). Teachers as mediators between educationalpolicy and practice. Educational Studies, 32 (4), 411-423.
Conlon, T. (2008). The dark side of GLOW: balancing the discourse. Scottish
Educational Review, 40 (2), 64-75.
Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York & London:
Teachers' College Press.
The Glasgow Herald, 10th February 2010. Retrieved April 17th from
http://www.heraldscotland.com/life-style/real-lives/how-glow-may-shine-once-
more-1.1008597
Holligan, C & Humes, W. (17th September 2009). The Hidden Politics of
Curriculum for Excellence. Retrieved April 17th 2010 from
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/the-hidden-politics-
of-the-curriculum-for-excellence-1.920583
Kelly, A. (2004). The Curriculum: theory and practice. London: Sage.
Kennedy, A. Adapted from Brain et al. (2006); Reid (1978); and Merton (1957). .
(2010, Feb 20). 2.4.1.4.1 Policy Development. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from
Learnonline@Strathclyde:
http://learnonline.strath.ac.uk/webct/urw/lc5116001.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.doweb
ct?
JSESSIONIDVISTA=5Q57LLsZB6LH3HfVmVmnGhYM3l18mDL0p5SynstX2nSZTQZL
zBrp!1381234635!learnonline.strath.ac.uk!80!443
Learing and Teaching Scotland a. (2007, June). Building the Curriculum 3 .
Retrieved April 2010
Learning and Teaching Scotlandb (2009). Curriculum for Excellence. Retrieved
2010, from Learning and Teaching Scotland:
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/background/index.asp
Learning and Teaching Scotland c. (2007). Glow National Site. Retrieved April
2010
https://portal.glowscotland.org.uk/establishments/nationalsite/documents/glowbe
tter.aspx
Learning and Teaching Scotland d. (2009, September). Working collaboratively
using Glow. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from Curriculum for Excellence Goood
Practice:
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/sharingpractice/m/modernlanguagesgoodpractice/d
evelopinglearningskills.asp?strReferringChannel=curriculumforexcellence
http://www.heraldscotland.com/life-style/real-lives/how-glow-may-shine-once-more-1.1008597http://www.heraldscotland.com/life-style/real-lives/how-glow-may-shine-once-more-1.1008597http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/the-hidden-politics-of-the-curriculum-for-excellence-1.920583http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/the-hidden-politics-of-the-curriculum-for-excellence-1.920583http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/background/index.asphttps://portal.glowscotland.org.uk/establishments/nationalsite/documents/glowbetter.aspxhttps://portal.glowscotland.org.uk/establishments/nationalsite/documents/glowbetter.aspxhttp://www.ltscotland.org.uk/sharingpractice/m/modernlanguagesgoodpractice/developinglearningskills.asp?strReferringChannel=curriculumforexcellencehttp://www.ltscotland.org.uk/sharingpractice/m/modernlanguagesgoodpractice/developinglearningskills.asp?strReferringChannel=curriculumforexcellencehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/life-style/real-lives/how-glow-may-shine-once-more-1.1008597http://www.heraldscotland.com/life-style/real-lives/how-glow-may-shine-once-more-1.1008597http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/the-hidden-politics-of-the-curriculum-for-excellence-1.920583http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/the-hidden-politics-of-the-curriculum-for-excellence-1.920583http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/background/index.asphttps://portal.glowscotland.org.uk/establishments/nationalsite/documents/glowbetter.aspxhttps://portal.glowscotland.org.uk/establishments/nationalsite/documents/glowbetter.aspxhttp://www.ltscotland.org.uk/sharingpractice/m/modernlanguagesgoodpractice/developinglearningskills.asp?strReferringChannel=curriculumforexcellencehttp://www.ltscotland.org.uk/sharingpractice/m/modernlanguagesgoodpractice/developinglearningskills.asp?strReferringChannel=curriculumforexcellence8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
17/18
LLemke, C., Coughlin, E., & Reifneider, D. (2009). Technology in Schools What
the research says: an update. Culver City CA: Commissioned by CISCO.
Lingard, B & Ozga, J. (2007). Education Policy and Politics. In B. &. Lingard, The
RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Education Policy and Politics (pp. 65-82). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Noble, D. (2008, July). Retrieved April 16, 2010, from The Edonis Project:
http://edonis.ning.com/
Priestley, M & Humes, W. (2010). The development of Scotland's Curriculum for
Excellence: amnesia or dja vu? Oxford Review of Education. First published on
26th February 2010 (iFirst)
Priestley, M. (2002). Global discourses and national reconstruction; the impact of
globalization on curriculum policy. Curriculum Journal , 121-138.
Richards, J. (2010, April 5th). The Emperor's new clothes. Retrieved April 16th,
2010, from Mimanifesto: http://mimanifesto.wordpress.com/
Richards, J. (2008). Will the Lights Stay On? Glow and Embedding ICT into
Secondary School Curriculum Subjects: A Quantitative and Qualitative Design-
based Classroom Study. Retrieved April 16th, 2010, from GTCs:
http://www.gtcs.org.uk/Research_/TeacherResearcherProgramme/TeacherResear
cherReports/will_the_lights_stay_on.aspx
The Scottish Executivea. (2000, December). NGfL Scotland Summary of Progress
report December 2000. Retrieved April 17th, 2010, fromhttp://openscotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/158365/0042900.pdf
The Scottish Executiveb. (2003). The Scottish Government. Retrieved April 16th,
2010, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/01/3009
Scottish Government (2008) Building the Curriculum 3 Available from
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/buildingthecurriculum/guid
ance/btc3/index.asp First Accessed June 2008
Statement of Requirements : SSDN ( 2002) (unpublished)
Trowler, P. (1998). Education Policy. Eastbourne: The Gildredge Press.
Wallace, V. (2010, 04 15). Investigating teachers perceptions of the purpose of
GLOW and the implications for practice. Retrieved 04 16, 2010, from Wallace
glow research blog: http://wallaceglow.wordpress.com/end-of-year-1-research-
project/final-end-of-year-1-report-p6535383-2/
Acknowledgement
Grateful thanks to John Connell, i8iuCisco, for sharing the paper SSDN Statementof Requirements
http://www.gtcs.org.uk/Research_/TeacherResearcherProgramme/TeacherResearcherReports/will_the_lights_stay_on.aspxhttp://www.gtcs.org.uk/Research_/TeacherResearcherProgramme/TeacherResearcherReports/will_the_lights_stay_on.aspxhttp://openscotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/158365/0042900.pdfhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/01/3009http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/buildingthecurriculum/guidance/btc3/index.asphttp://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/buildingthecurriculum/guidance/btc3/index.asphttp://wallaceglow.wordpress.com/end-of-year-1-research-project/final-end-of-year-1-report-p6535383-2/http://wallaceglow.wordpress.com/end-of-year-1-research-project/final-end-of-year-1-report-p6535383-2/http://www.gtcs.org.uk/Research_/TeacherResearcherProgramme/TeacherResearcherReports/will_the_lights_stay_on.aspxhttp://www.gtcs.org.uk/Research_/TeacherResearcherProgramme/TeacherResearcherReports/will_the_lights_stay_on.aspxhttp://openscotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/158365/0042900.pdfhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/01/3009http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/buildingthecurriculum/guidance/btc3/index.asphttp://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/buildingthecurriculum/guidance/btc3/index.asphttp://wallaceglow.wordpress.com/end-of-year-1-research-project/final-end-of-year-1-report-p6535383-2/http://wallaceglow.wordpress.com/end-of-year-1-research-project/final-end-of-year-1-report-p6535383-2/8/9/2019 Glow: A Policy Analysis
18/18