So what has happened to the New Opportunity Fund’s (NOF) pound;230 million for ICT training? Was it good for you? Good value? The ambition was impressive, but the execution left much to be desired and now it is nearly over. Schools only have until the end of March to enroll their staff.

The initiative is already being portrayed as successful, and in some ways it was. The level of basic training given was massive even though this is was precisely what the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) did not want to do. Ben Kelsey, of the ICAA training group, feels that NOF “has provided a good foundation for future ICT work across the curriculum, but not more than this in most schools”.

The real aim was to show teachers how to use the technology in their subjects. As OFSTED pointed out: “In spite of the intention, the lack of a subject-specific focus in the training programmes is a major weakness. Subject materials are often the last thing to be introduced and their quality remains mixed. Subject applications are referred to, but matters of pedagogy are generally not sufficiently explored.”

Probably too late to be helpful to most schools, the TTANOF published a digest of the reports they had commissioned on the quality of the providers. They make fascinating reading at www.nof.org.ukeduictatp.cfm So what next? The danger is that the box for ICT training will be ticked and the policy makers will move on. The truth is that the job is only half complete. Baroness Ashton indicated recently that she considered that schools should be responsible for further training. It will not be done that way. She has been badly advised.

Dick Fletcher, who has headed up some of the more successful examples of science training, feels that at the very least there should be dissemination by TTA or DFES of the good practice discovered by the accredited training providers. Fletcher would also like to see incentives for teachers to engage in regular continuing professional development and for companies to compete to provide that training.

Diane Fidler, of training provider SFE, would like to see further, focused ICT training to take teachers beyond the basics of NOF and to keep the use of ICT as a teaching and learning tool firmly on the agenda.

ICAA’s Ben Kelsey argues that a stage two is urgently needed. He sees the training as ICT management development for senior managers and an in-depth curriculum for subject teachers to maintain the momentum, or it will wither away for lack of continuity. All of this should form part of teacher development linked to clear overall learning and school improvement targets.

“The programme should be spread over two to three years with clear achievement criteria linked to professional development awards,” Kelsey says. “The funding for this could be considerably less than was needed for first stage as schools and providers are already tooled up for the programme - pound;100m to pound;150m would be a sensible figure scaled over two to three years to cover the whole UK.

Some 81 per cent of teachers completing the Learning Schools Programme tell us that they are interested in extending their use of ICT in the future,” remarks Chris Powley, general manager at the Learning Schools Programme. “It is important that we respond to this.”

Chris emphasises the need to learn from the experiences of NOF training. “There are many fine examples of innovation by dedicated teachers and advisers and we now need to share and recognise this practice more widely,” he says.

For the future Chris feels that it is important to develop specific guidance and support for school leadership teams on how to plan, implement and monitor the use of ICT to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

“Teachers’ continuing professional development in using ICT in their classroom will only have a marked impact if funding is ring-fenced, as with NOF funding,” he says.

It is easy to be cynical and to point out that training providers would be in favour of more training, wouldn’t they? The trouble is that they are right. The real cynicism comes from government spending lottery money and only half finishing the job. ICT demands lifelong learning.

The long history of half- implemented ICT projects should shame the DFES and the TTA. The recent ImpaCT2 interim report points out: “Many teachers lack confidence and experience difficulty integrating ICT into lessons. Observed lessons show that ICT is most frequently used for drill and practice.” Is that what we spent pound;230 million to achieve?

ICAA Stand: C142 Tel: 01962 735801 www.icttg.co.uk

Carter Small Partnership (Librarians) Tel:01963 34423 www.cspgroup.co.uk

SFE Tel: 0117 983 8890 www.sfe.co.uk

Capita Tel:0845 60 10 510 www.learning-network.net

ICTS Tel: 01457 819790 http:www.inclusive.co.uk

Granada Learning Professional Development Stands: E40 amp; F40 Tel: 0161 827 2927 www.granada-learning.com

TTA Stand: Y40 Tel:020 7925 3759 www.canteach.gov.uk

DFES Stand: X60 Tel: 020 7273 1100 www.dfes.gov.uk www.ngfl.gov.uk

Learning Schools Programme Stand: D50 amp; E50 Tel:0870 9086868 www.rm.com

Science Consortium Tel:0800 169 8822 www.scienceconsortium.co.uk