Typically, now would be the time for computers to be quietly mothballed. In fact, the opposite is happening. The familiar computer network, humming in an ICT room, is to be dropped, but phase two of the NGfL sees a new set of emerging digital technologies take over.

Teaching and learning is to be transformed. Students will learn through digital lessons at their own pace. E-learning means less direct contact with teachers, and between students; just as e-shopping replaces human contact in shops with remote communication over the Internet. Education faces its own scientific revolution, just as fundamental as the transformation of healthcare by gene sciences.

Since phase two depends on emerging technologies, it is by definition a leap into the unknown. It is worth considering how the Government has informed its policy. It is not, after all, a grassroots movement, determined and implemented by teachers. The tragedy of BSE taught us the importance of taking advice from the widest and best sources when policy is based on scientific uncertainty. It also showed the need for that advice to be published if public confidence is to be retained. How is the Department for Education and Skills measuring up on these two counts?

On advice, the department falls woefully short. It says its policy is based on findings from evaluation studies, discussion with teachers and pupils, industry comment and a review of research and best practice.

This may suffice, but for the fact that the DFES has charged its agency, Becta, with managing this process. Becta’s remit is to promote technology in learning. Becta’s supporting role means that it has the same problems that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had in supervising a powerful industry. This may make it easier for the DFES to implement change ahead of convincing evidence, but it does not necessarily make for safe, long-term policy.

The effect is noticeable. A search on Becta’s huge website for a list of well-known opponents to technology in schools brings up “no results”. Becta has nothing to say on potential downsides, like drill and practice or sedentary lifestyles. Searching for “Childhood Alliance”, or “Larry Cuban”, both noted adversaries, gives “no results”.

The Government is skewing the advice on which it acts. A more confident department would not ignore someone like Larry Cuban, professor of education at Stanford University and former president of the American Educational Research Association. It may even put someone like him in charge of supervising policy. In his absence, there is a role for teaching unions to consider the pros and cons of the effects of technology on their members.

On the second count of publishing all its advice, the DFES does little better. It says it has conducted a review of research but fails to say what research. It refers to discussions with teachers and pupils, hosted by Becta, but gives no details. Its own research is incomplete or not available. The raw data from the most recent DFES-funded research into video games was unavailable, because “it may confuse you since it appears to show different findings from those we are publishing”, I was told when I asked for it.

The DFES works for, I mean with, the ICT supply sector, but we have no particulars. Teachers can only wonder what the DFES makes of Microsoft’s dream. Its UK chief executive told a reporter:“Our vision is to convince people to ditch pen and paper and use a flat-screen digital device instead.”

A company with software to sell wants us to be dependent on digital technology - but does the DFES agree? The failure to publish all its advice can only undermine confidence in the strategy. This is one more area of policy that teachers need to keep an open mind on.

Debbie Davies is the author of the BBC’s Webwise tutorial for online beginners.