UK schools creating "generation of digital illiterates"

I wish I was given the option for learning more about computers in school e.g. Servers, programming, etc.

The closest to learning how a computer works we got to IIRC was a bit of HTML.....and we soon moved to a WYSIWYG editor.

I reckon I learned more about how computers WORK by not doing the work I was suppose to.

By tech3475 on 28 Nov 2011

Could not agree more

I despair at the trivial level of the homework my kids are sent home with.

The most taxing thing they seem to be tasked with is making a poster for a fictional event.

Rubbish

By Dannyt on 28 Nov 2011

Somewhere, IT eduction got lost..

Now they teach office administration and typing skills and call it "ICT".
Bring back "Computer Science" and teach the basic essential skills of analysis and programming.

By cheysuli on 28 Nov 2011

When did it disappear?

I left school in 1991 to do a degree after having done an 'A' level in CS. When did they stop teaching computing in schools?

By 959ARN on 28 Nov 2011

@959ARN

Well the school I went to originally offered it but then said they weren't....that was a few years ago now.

By tech3475 on 28 Nov 2011

Too Middle Class?

We shouldn't get too hung up on what is taught to students who are likely to end up working in a warehouse, shop or office. Only a small minority of students will need to go beyond the basics described in the article. Using Word and Excel will push many foundation level student to their limits. For a small minority, more advanced skill will be useful, and should be offered. However as middle class IT professionals, it is easy to forget the needs and abilities of the majority.

By tirons1 on 28 Nov 2011

@tirons1, agree for less reactionary reasons!

There are two different things getting conflated here. What is inappropriately called 'ICT' should be renamed 'Digital Literacy' and offered to everyone.

The 'technology' aspect centred on programming computers should be offered as an optional subject to those with the aptitude. An aptitude for programming has nothing to do with being "middle class" - it needs to be identified, nurtured and stretched wherever it is found. But it is not for everyone and forcing it on those without aptitude both demotovates them and holds back the rest of the class.

I have interviewed several people over the years with good computer science degrees who clearly had absolutely no aptitude for programming!
Oddly, most of them were very middle class! A tragic waste of their life opportunities and of precious educational resources.

By JohnAHind on 28 Nov 2011

Untrue!

Illiterate? We don't know the *meaning* of the word.

By Grace_Quirrel on 28 Nov 2011

how about we stop focusing on qualifications

It infuriates me every time I see articles about how people need more bits of paper to be good at IT. I sit here with no school or higher education qualifications in IT, and yet I have achieved far more than most I know who have them (My current position is systems architect for a large company). As JohnAHind points out, many people I have worked with have great IT degrees, but can’t actually do IT, in many cases these people are very good at remembering a syllabus, but have no ability to employ what they have learned in real world scenarios, coupled with the fast pace of change in IT, most things you learn over any length of time is irrelevant by the time you have finished.

By Mccers on 28 Nov 2011

What do we need schools to teach?

Poor computer science / ICT teaching in schools? Thank goodness things were different in Alan Turing's day... Oh, hang on...

Flippant that might be, but it does illustrate that a whole generation of IT employees grew up without the benefit of anything like it in their schooling. So what _do_ we need from schools? Clearly we do need a degree of digital literacy but I can't see that it constitutes a subject in its own right, any more than penmanship did - you use a word-processor in order to create an assignment in a subject, not as an assignment in its own right. At least, not after the first year or so.

Livingstone says that his industry relies on "a skilled workforce that can adapt to furious rates of technological change," he said. But anything that schools teach them will, by very reason of that furious change, be irrelevant very quickly. He says "the education system ... is not meeting the needs of creative digital industries". Surely, given that rate of change, only the creative digital industries can train their own employees. Or is training a dirty word now? Does every company rely on someone else to train their employees - "not our job to train people?"

What schools surely need to do is catch people with the sort of aptitude that is needed for IT and develop that aptitude. Maybe it's done in computer programming classes. But maybe it's done in maths or physics, just like it was for the first generation to work for Ferranti / ICT / ICL , etc. We don't, after all, teach mechanical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, etc in schools. Surely our objective is to develop the aptitude, not teach a skill that will be outdated in 5y time. (Nothing says we don't teach an obsolescent skill providing we understand we're doing it to develop the aptitude)

By AdrianB on 28 Nov 2011

Once more... Again

Why is it that PC Pro seems to have such a mis-understanding when it comes to reporting these "Industry says more Computer Science in schools" stories?
the way these stories are reported always follows the same route - Call for more CS in schools, complaints about not enough students/candidates with the requisite skills, followed swiftly with an attack on the ICT subject.

Yes, we could do with more CS being taught - as an OPTIONAL SUBJECT. However I will say this again (no doubt again & again...) ICT != CS.

The attack might as well against schools for teaching English as a subject or Physics, Maths or History for the relevance of ICT to CS.

ICT is all about the use of computers in the workplace, it is not and never has been about programming, networking or application design.

Yes, it is a necessary subject in it's own right - kids might be able to use a word processor to type up a project, but who would then teach them to do so effectively?
Expect a history teacher (for example) to spend time explaining the variations in Styles, Word Wrapping, Inserting TOC, creating web pages or the use of functions or formulae in a spreadsheet?

tirons1 and JohnAHind ave summed the rest of the argument up pretty well, so no need repeat.


PC Pro - When are you going to understand this?

By greemble on 28 Nov 2011

Greemble is right, in that computers are a tool and necessarily a subject in themselves. A very small minority of people become programmers, graphic artists or (the aspiration of most teenage boys) games designers. Nearly everyone needs to send emails, and do basic word processing.

However, at a college where I used to teach they have just cancelled the Microsoft IT Pro and Cisco courses. This is down to a lack of understanding that there is a place for training people who want to work specifically in IT.

By Stiggy on 28 Nov 2011

Hang on greemble - much as I agree with your anlysis, PCPro ain't doing the attacking - it seems to me it's just reporting what people have said.

By AdrianB on 28 Nov 2011

The way it's reported is attacking

Notice the links within the story - including direct interviews and the invariable comparisons made with ICT & CS.

This comparison has been commented upon several time by a number of commentators (not just me) - and still the editors don't seem to realise there is a difference.

By greemble on 29 Nov 2011

Hi Greemble,

Thanks for the comments. We're not attacking anyone - the links are simply to related stories to give context, as they are in any news story.

You're correct that ICT and CS are two separate subjects, but they are related. At the moment the Government is considering removing the ICT course or adding more CS type studies to ICT courses, the idea being that students would at least understand how the basics work.

So to compare the two and make reference to both is rather necessary. Ian Livingstone is arguing there should be more CS type work in ICT classes. How all of this ends up worked into the curriculum remains to be seen, of course.

Thanks,
Nicole Kobie
News Editor

By Nicole_Kobie on 29 Nov 2011

ICT - The problem is the name!

The problem with ICT being a course about using computers is that the name causes people to reasonably expect much more than that. If I took a course called "Automotive Technology" and it turned out to be just about how to drive a car, I'd be pretty disappointed! If, as I suggested, we called the subject "Computer/Digital Literacy" this confusion would not arise. But as others have suggested, it might be better to address this within other subjects rather than making it a specific subject.

The real problem is with "Computer Science" - a specialised subject for those with aptitude and interest. Again it is a misnomer, it is not "science", it is "technology" or "engineering". The "science" basis of IT (or ICT if you redundantly insist) is mathematics and physics.

By JohnAHind on 29 Nov 2011

Think you'll find it has more to do with Noam Chomsky than Fermat and Rutherford. As in linguistics (Language theory ack, I hated pumping lemmings er Lemmas). Or perhaps predicate logic which I would strongly contend is not a branch of maths this side of hell.

By irturner on 29 Nov 2011

@irturner

For Computer Science the names I'd be talking are Turing and Shannon. But we only need a tiny academic elite trained in this stuff. We need an army of people trained in Computer and Communications Engineering, and everyone needs to be digitally literate.

By JohnAHind on 29 Nov 2011

Could'nt agree more contd

I am in IT professional (Oracle Analyst/Programmer) and have been a school governor and I agree with this article and some of the comments made previously. When I was at school in the mid '70's we were TAUGHT to program as opposed to learning how to use applications. Sadly some of the staff who are now teaching our kids ICT do not have a solid IT programming background....

By Michael38 on 30 Nov 2011

Take Care

It seems to me that the problem here is poorly defined. We see statements like 'ICT in schools is broken' and ths response seems almost universally that if we just taught 'programming' we'd be fine. Here are a few observations:

Ian Livingstone at a keynote at Microsoft HQ said that numbers of University entrants (to 'computing courses') have dropped from 5% to 3% and at the best University almost 46% get jobs within 6 months. So less than half of 3% get jobs. Does this mean that every student has to be taught computer science?

The National Curriculum makes is compulsory that EVERY school teaches programming and reports progress to parents every year up to age 16 - this is a legal requirement held in primary legslation BUT schools still get 'outstanding' in all categories when they obviously fail to develop ICT capability.

All the talk of 'Broken ICT' has already had the effect of schools taking ICT off the curriculum all together.

ICT across the curriculum is NOT the same as ICT as a subject. ICT is a tool but then so is English and Maths and our workforce is much more competent in these areas so lets start with English across the curriculum - oh yes - we tried that and failed.

We need to help children progress - get better - with ICT not just use it as a tool. We need to gefine and understand what getting better at programming is. Many schools use Scratch - but what does getting better look like.

The National Curriculum (and the explanatory Programmes of Study) are sound enough but the complexity, creativity and independence often seen at KS2 and 3 are often squeezed by a massive pressure to achieve a KS4 qualification - and I find it difficult to blame teachers who take the (perceved) easiest route to GCSE success.

ANYWAY - Take care because we already have schools with NO perceved route to develop ICT capability. When it disapears as a compulsory subject to be replaced with optional 'computer science' there are precious few teachers who can deliver this so there will be much less ICT in schools not more.

By BremhillBob on 1 Dec 2011

The PC Pro Attack

Nicole,

We've had the discussion before about the 'slant' that PC Pro puts on stories about ICT in schools - even your headline spells it out. I understand the need editorially but the arguement of "I'm just reporting" isn't valid.

Good journalism requires more than finding a few headline grabbing reports and repeating them. There IS much more going on here.

By BremhillBob on 1 Dec 2011

The PC Pro Attack

Nicole,

We've had the discussion before about the 'slant' that PC Pro puts on stories about ICT in schools - even your headline spells it out. I understand the need editorially but the arguement of "I'm just reporting" isn't valid.

Good journalism requires more than finding a few headline grabbing reports and repeating them. There IS much more going on here.

By BremhillBob on 1 Dec 2011

The PC Pro Attack

Nicole,

We've had the discussion before about the 'slant' that PC Pro puts on stories about ICT in schools - even your headline spells it out. I understand the need editorially but the arguement of "I'm just reporting" isn't valid.

Good journalism requires more than finding a few headline grabbing reports and repeating them. There IS much more going on here.

By BremhillBob on 1 Dec 2011