From curve to curve
A second hypothesis was that the curve of political priority for the integration of ICT in education, whether it was considered a banner issue or not, has passed its peak and is on the decline in a considerable number of European countries. Feedback from PIC members would seem to indicate such a trend for some, but not all countries. In Denmark for example, despite having been an outstanding early-starter in the integration of ICT in schools and being renown for its work in training teachers in ICT integration in class, no specific new, targeted ICT programmes are planned.

That the ICT curve may have passed its peak does not imply, however, that no more work needs to be done with ICT – on the contrary. ICT may have shifted out of the spotlight, but not off the stage. As an example of this, let’s come back to Denmark where, although no new ICT programmes are forthcoming, ICT is embedded in all new initiatives such as the reformed curriculum and the drive to spread life-long learning. Here lies the key strategic question: as new “banner-issues” emerge is it possible to envisage any remaining work on the integration of ICT in education from the perspective of these new issues, capitalising on their new-found political priority?

The change of “banner-issue” is not a passing whim or a fad. Rather, the evolving situation requires a shift in perspective, a new starting point, a new, rising curve that can be the focus for renewed priorities and effort. That the perspective of each new curve is different can be seen from the example of the shift from the introduction of ICT in education to empowering schools in Northern Ireland. The former was centred on the deployment of technology and training people to use it. The latter focuses on enabling schools to learn and develop as institutions so as to encourage equity and improve performance. Although technology continues to be widely used in the latter, it is seen as a tool towards an end and not as a goal in itself as was largely the case in the former.

Business as usual??
The metaphor of the banner issue springs from a “joined-up” perspective in which neighbouring policy areas are seen to interact and affect each other. Banner issues are invariably cross-sector in nature. Such a perspective requires a more integrated approach to policy-making that cuts across traditional institutional boundaries and considers the system as a whole. It contrasts with the more traditional “business as usual” perspective, in which each institutional actor has a clearly defined remit and a distinct zone of action. Such a compartmentalised approach makes it clear who does what and seeks to minimise conflict, but does not preclude collaboration and coordination providing boundaries are respected. This legacy of quieter times is not well adapted, however, to fast changing, complex situations where the rigid definition of territories and perspectives acts as a barrier to finding effective solutions.

Change strategy??
It is not possible to generalise across countries as far as banner issues are concerned, as the differing subjects mentioned above indicate. Many issues are strongly bound to the specific national and regional context like the question of language in integrating foreigners in Catalonia, or the changes in demographics in Estonia or the need for educational harmonisation across the twenty-six independent cantons of Switzerland. However, a number of trends seem to be taking shape in the evolution of strategies with respect to ICT in education. It is possible that the extent to which these take place depends on the degree of integration of ICT in education and, more generally, in society at large. Work on ICT in education tends to get shifted out of ministries and into agencies, creating a need for improved communication mechanisms. Such a shift could also be seen as producing a potential decline in the priority granted to ICT. There is an increasing pressure for accountability and, as a result, a drive to find more satisfactory ways and means of piloting the system, in particular, through the development of indicators that help evaluate the impact of ICT strategies. The question of improved accountability is also linked to a move to offer greater autonomy to schools as in The Netherlands, for example. Integration of ICT across an ever-increasing range of activities goes hand-in-hand with the integration of responsibility for ICT policy across a number of ministries and departments. This aspect of integration is evident in The Netherlands where there is no longer a separate directorate for ICT in education, but related policies are integrated across a number of directorates. This sharing of responsibility could be a source of difficulty. In Denmark, for example, concern was expressed about a possible loss of coherence and coordination of actions related to ICT as well as a slowing off of innovation due to a decrease of central support.

The knowledge perspective
As many national agencies working on ICT in education have a remit that is confined to ICT, any decline in the priority of ICT or the means available could bring a serious problem. If their raison-d’être is working on ICT, given the changing context, what must be their future role? How can an organisation that has been entirely devoted to working on ICT in education rise to such a challenge? One potentially fruitful perspective on this problem is that of knowledge management and the learning organisation. The ICT agency has developed a considerable pool of knowledge about ICT and its integration in education as well as about communication and the management of change. How can this knowledge be best used to contribute to the new challenges to education and society as expressed by the banner issues? How can the agency “ride” the new curve by using its knowledge to help others face the challenges of the emerging issues? What new knowledge does the agency have to acquire to do that work? And what strategies must it elaborate to develop that knowledge? It becomes clear that the underlying question in the work on the Next Curve within the Policy and Innovation Committee is to see to what extent agencies and ministries can use such a “knowledge perspective” in policy making to help them handle complex change.

Some agencies have made very clear changes in their policy and activities, shifting roles or making transitions to adjust to wider changes. One example brought up at the PIC meeting was Northern Ireland’s CCEA which has made a substantial move as a traditional assessment organisation towards one that favours a more qualitative approach involving amongst other things the use of ePortfolios and formative assessment. Another example is the new Dutch ICT organisation. Bringing together Kennisnet and ICT op School, it has been part of the Dutch response to changing conditions, combining service provision and knowledge of user needs. They are now required to consider issues of governance as they have to work with the new overarching primary and secondary organisations.

The institutional knowledge portfolio
For all the talk of developing a knowledge society, however, relatively few participants saw their work from the knowledge perspective and found it difficult to point to the ways in which their institution had responded to challenges by developing new knowledge. One way of developing such a knowledge-based perspective and responding to requests for increased accountability would be to elaborate institutional e-Portfolios, as they require thought being given to knowledge that has been developed and ways in which work indicates the use of that knowledge. They also require reflection on what new knowledge is required and the strategies needed to acquire that knowledge.