Premium
Portable computers for teachers and support services working with pupils with Special Educational Needs: An evaluation of the 1999 United Kingdom Department for Education and Employment scheme
Author(s) -
Lewis Ann,
Neill Sean
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
british journal of educational technology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.79
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1467-8535
pISSN - 0007-1013
DOI - 10.1111/1467-8535.00200
Subject(s) - workload , psychology , service (business) , flexibility (engineering) , medical education , work (physics) , applied psychology , computer science , engineering , mathematics , medicine , statistics , business , mechanical engineering , marketing , operating system
This study arose from the distribution of portable computers (“portables”) to special educational needs coordinators and support services by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) through Standards Grant 36 in mid 1999. The study comprised two successive questionnaires. The aim of the surveys was to elicit the benefits of portables in relation to the special educational needs coordinator/support service roles as well as to evaluate this process of distributing resources. Questionnaire A to local education authorities (LEAs) was returned by 96 LEAs (a 64% return rate). There were 778 returns of questionnaire B from recipients of portables and 405 returns from the matched group of non‐recipients. Overall the distribution of portables under this grant was well‐regarded by LEA personnel, particularly in the smaller authorities, with reservations relating mainly to the lack of time to administer the scheme. The guidance from the DfEE was regarded as helpful with inherent (valued) flexibility. Amount and level of training appeared to have varied greatly across LEAs but where training had been relatively substantial there was evidence of its impact on teachers' reported use of the portables. The scheme was welcomed by school and, particularly, support service staff. However all recipient groups tended to reflect some disappointment with what the portable provided in practice. Three particular aspects are discussed in more detail. First, in relation to time and workload issues, it was reported that teachers were spending considerable “non work” time in learning to make good use of the portables. Second, there were considerable training needs for teachers and others, spanning a wide range of levels. Third, the position of support service staff warranted more attention as their apparently comparatively disadvantageous position has implications for wider changes concerning centralised LEA, as opposed to school‐based, resources.