Digital at school: all (or almost) remains to be done

The new economy has learned to deal with a radical concept that refers to an immediate total change, of rupture, between one mode of organization and another without transition phase or almost, the "disruption".

Is digital technology the instrument of disruption expected for the school?

The digital disruption of the school

The mobilization of promising instruments in the seed of reforms or modifications of what is happening in school is not new. Since the arrival of cinema in the early twentieth century, this was already envisaged. In the 50s, this was institutionalized, then the educational television, the radio, then the computer, then the CD-ROM, then the Internet, then the mobiles, then the tablets, then the interactive whiteboards, then the robot ladybugs.

Observing the sedimentary layers of technology at school, it is at the same time to note the immutable political discourses that consider each time that the digital will change the world of the school.

But each time, there is no disruption. That is to say, the school swallows, metabolizes and most often forgets each of these instruments. If it is the photocopier that replaced the reproduction via stencil that flourished alcohol, almost none of the technologies has been permanently installed in the landscape, driven by another mode, another injunction, another possible political valuation .

In the land of magic paintings

The example of the interactive digital whiteboard is quite enlightening in this respect. Undeniably, the instrument has positive pedagogical characteristics that research has been able to highlight.

However, the vast majority of the deployment of this tool has only benefited from the magic effect of the tool. Moreover, almost 20 years ago, during the first versions, a brand had chosen this name of "magic board" to market it. For the rest, the instrument reinforces traditional practices of teachers, even if it is possible to do something else.

But, it is visible, spectacular the first times that the parents and the elected ones see it, and that legitimizes mass investments.

If the digital board has not yet revolutionized the school, its first virtue has been to open it to new markets. He more than other objects, because he fit well in a representation of the new tool made available to the class, while allowing the teacher to finally not change his practice and he does not did not attack frontally the historical market of the school, the school publishing.

Means for which results?

In the service of an evolution under technological pressure, the national public authorities and the local authorities are not stingy with investments.

Mission Monteil is preparing to distribute 30 million euros in nine projects, a future investment plan, to which more millions will be added by the summer.

This follows other national plans, while it is very difficult to quantify the school's digital bill.

First of all, because the fragmentation of responsibilities between the local authorities, the competences, the policies and the choices retained by each one, can dilute the budget posts in the middle of other expenses. For example, one local authority includes network costs in other investments, while another identifies it specifically.

In 2012, the digital school guide distributed by the association of mayors of France, with the support of private companies of course, figures the deployment of a digital environment for the primary to 21 euros per year per student, obviously without content.

Attempts to quantify in an academy reveal an area of ​​expenditure for digital that would be around 20% of the costs of education by local authorities.

Taking into account that all communities do not have the same pace, the same ambitions-indeed, remember that some massively endow college students with tablets, laptops, that some municipalities broadcast magic table on large scales, then that others are constrained to the economy - one could, without unfortunately serious basis, return to 10% of the budget devoted to education by local authorities.

If we look at the DEPP score (the evaluation, foresight and performance department), education cost them in 2014, 35 billion euros. This would make a range between 3.5 to 7 billion euros per year spent on digital in the education system, to which must be added the state expenditure, subsidies, tender Digital technology at school is therefore a budget item that is not quite minor, if not revolutionizing what happens there.

This probably explains why Caisse des Dépôts has played such an important role for more than 15 years in this register, as if it were natural to address a banker regarding the school. Again, who evaluates the role of the major players in the Republic? How to challenge the reports with rose water? How to ensure the transparency of subsidies? For example, it is very difficult to map the aid allocated to this register over the last 10 years, and even more to measure the concrete impacts.

A comfortable schizophrenia

Digital in the educational system is a good analyzer for schizophrenia in which the Republic is locked up. Before the development of school rhythms paradoxically instituted unequal educational treatment on the territory by a left-wing government, since what is offered to children is in direct dependence on the means of the municipalities, the digital is historically probably the first post by which the national education began to be no longer.

As spending diversity is the rule, the differential can be very large between rich and poor communities. At the same time, the uniform national piloting, Republic obliges, diffuses a consumerism straitjacket without ever asking the question of the efficiency that one expects.

Without wishing to be overly polemical about the postures that are made to the senior officials responsible for the setting of the ministerial decisions in the media, following the "refoundation of the school", a director of the Direction was told digital education for 2014:

We have two years to redefine the foundation of programs and train school teachers. We are therefore in order of battle to broadcast massively, as of 2016, the new programs in digital format
Fortunately, in the public service we never evaluate what we announce.

What is the point of program basics with digital? How to train hundreds of thousands of school teachers to equipments they do not have most? Who can believe that school publishers can look favorably on the tipping of a historically protected market to abandon it to digital?

Objectives and evaluations

More broadly, what are the objectives assigned to the investments that we make? Who is accountant? Who reports to whom?

We are faced with the notion of public service, but it should be qualified as differentiated, on the basis of a policy of supply, with digital investments supposed to make more efficient, attractive ... without ever being able to do anything to say anything about what is done.

Of course, the reports, the brochures, the shows like Educatec, demonstrate that these investments are used. But what impact do they have massively on the practices of teachers, and the learning of students? Once the money is spent, we can regret that it is, but it's over.

While institutional practices have a hard time being disruptive, this is not the case with personal practices. Teachers are increasingly using digital technology to prepare their lessons, without integrating them massively into the relationship with students.

As for students, they are increasingly using digital technology to learn on the exchange sites, on the tutorial sites. Is the meeting of the two possible?

Change everything or change everything

Two radically different solutions could crystallize. Although the debate is for the moment completely taboo, the management of education at the national level reaches an a-democratic level. That is to say, obviously all political camps make it their priority, but no one is ever accountable for what is invested.

It is therefore a kind of horse chestnut, so the concrete impact on the administration and then on the practices is at the margin. Going to the end of decentralization, entrusting at the national level the orientations and the cohesion, and the management of all the means to the regions of the nursery school to the higher education, would make it possible both to their administration, which should strive to ensure the equity of all, especially with regard to the inequality of municipal jurisdictions, and above all would be under the direct control of voters on a subject of weight.

The other solution is to ask the operational level of national education governance to ensure digital disruption. That is to say, to ask the inspectorates, to really train themselves to a total change of teaching practices by integrating digital technology, taking care to limit useless drifts and focusing on creative and measurable potentials.The reality of the system is that if this level of inspection is not fully involved and evaluated on the success of its action on this register, not much will happen, but enough to make communication and seek to spend another few millions.

Finally, is not it the goal?