CEIBAL:

NEXT STEPS
FINAL REPORT

Michael Fullan Nancy Watson Stephen Anderson

Michael Fullan Enterprises Toronto, Canada January 30, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 CEIBAL.............................................................................................................................................. 1 The whole system challenge............................................................................................................. 1 2. Our mandate ................................................................................................................... 2 Conceptual framework or questions guiding our work: .................................................................... 2 3. Uruguay and the Uruguayan education system................................................................ 4 The country...................................................................................................................................... 4 The Uruguayan school system .......................................................................................................... 4 Description of system .......................................................................................................................... 4 Noteworthy features of system........................................................................................................... 5 4. CEIBAL First phase (2006-2009): A matter of access.......................................................... 7 Launch and early development ........................................................................................................ 7 5. CEIBAL Second phase (2010-present): Adding support elements. ..................................... 9 Plan CEIBAL in transition .................................................................................................................. 9 Teacher and student use of XOs in classrooms ................................................................................. 9 Early CEIBAL supports..................................................................................................................... 11 More powerful supports ................................................................................................................ 12 Direct human resource support to schools ....................................................................................... 12 Adaptive mathematics program ........................................................................................................ 13 Digital textbooks................................................................................................................................ 13 Online Student Assessment System. ................................................................................................. 13 Plataforma CREA................................................................................................................................ 14 Other initiatives and supports ........................................................................................................... 14 Courses .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Remote teaching of English........................................................................................................................... 14 Increased support for servers in schools....................................................................................................... 15 Robotics......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Dissemination of innovative practice.............................................................................................. 15 Challenges accompanying rich resources ........................................................................................ 15 Strengthening and expanding connections with the school system ................................................ 16 Transitioning from Phase 2 ............................................................................................................. 16 6. Next Phase 2013 onwardfocus on quality implementation ......................................... 16 1. Focus on a small number of ambitious goals as core priorities. ............................................... 17 2. CEIBAL and the Education Authorities to jointly develop the infrastructure to support implementation of the core priorities in a clear, specific, ongoing way........................................... 17

 3. Develop the roles of Inspectors and school principals to support implementation in and across schools........................................................................................................................................... 18 4. Develop the professional capacity of teachers, and related working conditions (e.g., small amounts of time) that would increase the capacity of teachers, individually and collectively to implement the core priorities......................................................................................................... 21

7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 23 8. References and Sources Consulted................................................................................. 26

CEIBAL: NEXT STEPS

1. Introduction
CEIBAL
Plan CEIBAL is an impressively ambitious initiative taking place over the last five years in Uruguay. Successful in its first phase (distributing small laptops to every child and every teacher in the school system and providing internet connections for schools and communities), CEIBAL has also made considerable progress with the goal of social inclusion in this case, narrowing the digital gap by ensuring technology access, including internet connections, for disadvantaged families and communities Plan CEIBAL enjoys strong public support according to various polls undertaken over the past few years. Uruguayans from all walks of life know about CEIBAL and express pride that their small country has taken a leading role in providing access to technology for all. In this report we examine the first two phases of the CEIBAL from 2008 to the present and then make four interrelated recommendations for going to the next phase which we callfocused implementation. Although schools were the arena in which Plan CEIBAL carried out its work, an emphasis on teaching and learning was not the top priority in the first phase of the initiative. As CEIBAL has moved into the next phase of its work, its leaders, along with leaders in the education system, have increasingly focused on how technology use can change teaching and learning in positive ways, and how such improvement can be accomplished across the whole school system, not just in a few schools or in pilot programs in limited areas of the country.

The whole system challenge

Uruguay is not alone in facing the whole system challenge. As countries around the world grapple with the need to better prepare students for the challenges of globalization and what has been termed 21st Century Skills, education leaders and policy makers have increasingly focused on how to raise the caliber of teaching and learning, not just in a few schools but across entire systems. Fullan argues that a limited focus on low-performing schools or on new schools that will start afresh will not address challenges of scale what is needed are policies and strategies that focus on the culture of teaching and leadership. The aim must be to develop the entire teaching profession and to do so by leveraging the power of groups of teachers and administrators focusing on student learning. In such a context, applying lessons from decades of studying educational change (Fullan, 2010a, 2010b), school systems can improve dramatically, whatever their starting points (Fullan, 2011; Levin, 2008, 2011; Mourshed et al., 2010). The drivers that will engage educators on a sustained basis and lead into cycles of continuous improvement, must meet the following criteria (Fullan, 2011, p.3):

 foster intrinsic motivation of teachers and students; engage educators and students in continuous improvement of instruction and learning; inspire collective or team work; and affect all teachers and students.

External authorities, usually governmental, have an important role in guiding and supporting schools, but broad based long term improvement also has to be sustained by educators themselves. Assessment provides valuable information for making decisions about instruction, but without collective capacity building and teacher ownership, assessment and accountability can only provide extrinsic motivation Most recently, adding technology to the whole system reform mix, Fullan, in his book Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge (2013) argues for the power of bringing together advances in pedagogy (how we learn), in technology (especially around engagement), and in change knowledge (especially around making change easier and more widespread). Although he acknowledges that the big educational advances in integrating technology and pedagogy are still to be developed he makes a case for exploring how technology, well used, can help us race rapidly to a future that humankind wants and will find fulfilling (p. 14). What kind of teaching produces the deeper learning outcomes that are now required? Can we be more explicit about the teaching practices required? And, crucially, what does it take to support sustained implementation of such improved practices? Recent research in a variety of settings has gone some way to illuminate such questions. We will draw on recent work by ITL (Innovative Teaching and Learning) Research (Shear, Gallagher & Patel, 2011), since that research is particularly relevant to the technology- rich classrooms and schools in Uruguay. The ITL research sees teaching in an ecosystem of change with student skills for life and work at the core. Support is provided by three sets of factors innovative teaching practices (which we can characterize, for present purposes, as teaching for deeper learning), school leadership and culture, and education system supports. Innovative or deeper learning teaching has three elements: student centered pedagogies (knowledge building, self assessment, collaboration, communication); extending learning beyond the classroom (problem solving and real world innovation); and ICT use, in the service of specific and concrete learning goals.

2.

Our mandate

Conceptual framework or questions guiding our work:

We have been asked, by CEIBAL leaders, to explore CEIBAL and its role in Uruguayan education from the perspective of whole system reform and what is known about educational change, with the aim of coming up with suggestions or recommendations for the next phase of CEIBALs contributions to education. In general, we have pursued three tasks:

 1. First, exploring and articulating the change model/strategies used by Plan CEIBAL to date, from 2007 to 2012, noting how these may have evolved over the five years. We will review goals, actors/agencies, roles, types of support, challenges and how such challenges have been addressed. 2. Second, working out the extent to which principles of whole system reform (as summarized by Fullan and others; see immediately below) might apply to the challenge of next steps for Plan CEIBAL moving to a greater focus on teaching and learning through access to and innovative use of technology, and over time, improved learning across all/most schools. 3. Third, using these principles of whole system reform, suggesting specific directions for next steps for CEIBAL and the Uruguay school system, taking account of relevant features of the situation that may require particular adaptations of the principles. In carrying out these tasks, we kept in mind the following principles of whole system reform, principles gleaned from reviewing more and less successful efforts in a range of educational jurisdictions: Small number of ambitious priorities: focus on these and reduce/avoid distractions; Cohesive policies so infrastructure is focused on key priorities; Coordinated leadership at all levels, with an emphasis on the leadership role of principals/directors; Development of entire teaching profession, including support for implementation at classroom, school, department ; Link between instruction and assessment (aligned and balanced); Learn as you go; in other words, learn from implementation during implementation; try, assess, modify or refine; Development of a focused intervention strategy, targeted as appropriate; and Money used mainly in the service of the previous principles, that is, to support system-wide change.

In our explorations of CEIBAL, we combined review of reports and online material with a ten-day site visit to Uruguay in late October 2012. Two members of the team (Anderson and Watson) conducted interviews and met with spokespersons from within CEIBAL and from a variety of other organizations in the Uruguayan education system. The site visit included observation and interviews with education personnel in several schools in Montevideo and the departments. Throughout our work, we used the following general questions to guide our information gathering and processing: 1. What is changing...technology (access, use), pedagogy (curriculum, teacher and student roles and learning process)...relation between the two...and evidence of change? 2. What is the support system (infrastructure, delivery of support/assistance) for identified changes at different levels of the system? 3. What are the links (vision, actions, evidence) between technology and pedagogy? 4. Who are leaders/change agents: what are they doing to build capacity of others to implement changes? What about building the capacity of leaders?

 5. What is CEIBAL/education system doing to promote/support innovation in technology/pedagogy in the classroom, to identify and refine promising practices, and to enable dissemination across the system?

3.

Uruguay and the Uruguayan education system

The country
Uruguay is a small South American Country of three and a half million people, with Brazil to its north and Argentina to the west. The country is largely urban, with one third of the population living in the capital, Montevideo. Uruguay enjoys one of the least inequitable income distributions in Latin America, along with comparatively high levels of literacy and a school system that does well in the international PISA results in comparison to its Latin American neighbors.

The Uruguayan school system

Description of system The school system in Uruguay is characterized by a range of agencies, operating somewhat independently from each other and without a great deal of coherence across the system. To begin at the national level, three bodies with differentiated spheres of responsibility govern all education, from pre- school through post-secondary: the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), the National Administration of Public Education (ANEP) and the University of the Republic of Uruguay. The Ministry of Education and Culture sets only the most general policies relating to education. The National Administration of Public Education (Administracin Nacional de Educacin PblicaANEP) operates outside the government/civil service but with full public funding. Its senior group is the Central Administrative Council (Consejo Directivo Central CODICEN), which includes the National Director of Public Education, the Vice-President and three Counsellors. Its main purposes are to: establish the countrys education policy, and to provide free compulsory secular general primary education, post- basic studies, general secondary education, technical education and teacher training. ANEP works with four autonomous decentralized councils, again publicly funded, each responsible for a specific sphere or level of education, as outlined below. It is within the councils that much of the framework and actions governing day to day operation of schools and teacher training actually originate. It seems that many of those in leading roles within the councils are also involved in the education system in other ways; it is rare to find someone with only one role. Representatives from each council serve on the CODICEN referred to above. The four councils are: The Primary and Initial Education Council (Consejo de Educacin Inicial y PrimariaCEIP) is responsible for pre-school education (children aged 4 and 5) and primary education, including six years of compulsory schooling. Rural schools are administered by separate support services in CEIP. A multi-layered inspectorate system also operates within CEIP, with technical inspectors and inspectors for special education, early education, music education, practice teaching schools, as well as the structure for departmental inspections. 4

 The Secondary Education Council (Consejo de EducacinSecundariaCES) is responsible for compulsory basic secondary education, covering the 1st to 3rd years, and upper secondary education, covering the three year program required for the secondary school certificate course. The Professional Technical Education Council (Consejo de Educacin Tcnico ProfesionalCETP) provides compulsory basic education, with the same curriculum and is also responsible for secondary technological education, basic vocational education and advanced vocational education, which prepare young people not only to continue with higher studies, but also to enter the workforce. Teacher Training Council (CFE): is in charge of the primary teacher-training institutes that prepare teachers (departmental beginning teacher education schools, which are now being federated into a university with multiple campuses). It is also responsible for the Artigas Teachers Institute, the only secondary teacher-training school until the mid 1990s, when regional secondary teachers centers (centros regionales de profesores) were set up in different parts of the country.

Uruguay is divided into nineteen departments, operating somewhat like municipal councils. Because of its population size, the capital city of Montevideo is divided into three administrative units for educational governance and services, similar to the departmental organization structures. Each department has a cadre of school inspectors, operating at the zone and department level, with differentiated responsibilities depending on level (primary, secondary), subject area, and type of school. The scope and responsibility of these positions may be clearly defined on paper but it would appear that in practice individual inspectors have considerable latitude to carry out the role in different ways. The existence and operation of the multiple agencies indicates that Uruguay has a loosely coupled system of governance for education, with high degrees of autonomy among different levels and organizations. Beyond policy formulation and guidance, most of the day to day running of system is done through Councils and their departmental inspectorate counterparts. Because we are looking initially only at primary education, we will focus on the work of CEIP and to a lesser extent the teacher training council; these two bodies, particularly CEIP, are the ones most crucial to CEIBALs success in fostering integration of technology in Uruguayan primary schools. Noteworthy features of system Length of school day. The majority of common schools (escuelas comunas) operate with a four hour instructional timetable. Many buildings have two shift schools (8am-noon and 1pm-5:00pm); the main reason is shortage of school buildings with funding not available for new buildings. Schools may have separate principal and teachers for both shifts or employ the same principal and teachers, but are administratively and financially treated as two schools. Rural schools. 50% of schools are designated rural schools, serving fewer than 20 students, although such schools serve only 5% of student population. Rural schools have a five hour day to provide meals to students who come from a distance. Although it is costly to maintain such schools, they enjoy a long history and considerable political support. Some were established long ago as a linguistic buffer along

 the Brazilian border. CEIBAL has provided XO devices to all, and all but 70 schools now connected to internet; solar panels are provided for the few schools that lack electricity. Multiple types of primary schools (escuelas bsicas). The more than two thousand Uruguayan primary schools1 are mostly common schools (4 hour school day), with approximately 240 complete or full time schools (7.5 hour school day, with 2.5 hours a week coordination time for teacher meetings, etc.). The complete time school is a relatively new initiative to better meet the needs of disadvantaged communities; more are being added each year. A few urban schools in high poverty communities operate with extended time, with students attending regular school in morning, and being taught by specialist teachers in the afternoon. Teacher work day: The teacher work day varies by type of school as indicated above, but in general, four hours per day, all instructional time. There have been recent moves by government to extend the school day, but the number of schools affected is small, partly because of the double shift schools. The government (CEIP) is also phasing in partial funding for schools to open on eight Saturday mornings during the year for paid teacher coordination time. At present, participation is voluntary and pay is low, providing only modest incentives for teachers to take part in this collaborative work opportunity. Double jobs: Most teachers and many other people in the education system work multiple jobs, reportedly because of low salaries (although salaries have been increased substantially over the past seven years). Teachers may teach in two schools (maybe mix public and private); be the director in one school and teach in another; serve as computer resource teacher in one school and classroom teacher in another. Dual employment applies to principals (referred to as directores in Uruguay) as well as teachers. The two job phenomenon, along with the four hour instructional day, means that personnel have little time for staff meetings, teamwork or joint professional development. It also means that any plans for school improvement (e.g., more collaborative work focused on student learning needs particular to a school) would have to be duplicated in two education settings for many teachers. Working multiple jobs is currently part of the culture of teaching in Uruguay. School directors (principals) remain members of the teachers union. There is no separate professional association of principals, nor does there appear to be a distinct system of preparation and ongoing professional support for the role, beyond an examination that prospective principals must pass. We did not hear of any initiatives targeting principals as local leaders for the integration of technology in the school. Teacher autonomy: People in various roles repeatedly emphasized that teachers are subject to the national curriculum content expectations but have the freedom to choose how to teach, what materials to use, whether to seek professional development, etc. It seems to be generally accepted that this autonomy is not to be violated or that there is no point in trying to do so. We will take up this point later when we talk about the difference between individual autonomy and a more collective autonomy. Tensions may emerge if government agencies attempt to use policy to shape education where a conception of teacher autonomy views such efforts as subject to voluntary buy in. Balancing hierarchy and autonomy is always difficult.
1

There are approximately 300 secondary schools, plus approximately 75 technical schools.

 Inspectorate and role of inspectors: We noted some lack of clarity around the role of inspectors, particularly around the extent to which inspectors are expected to provide assistance and guidance, as well as evaluate. Formally, the duties of inspectors center on the communication of education policies to school personnel, and on annual evaluations of classroom teachers and principals. Whatever the individual variations in inspector actions, teacher evaluations are high stakes; the report and ratings from an inspector can determine teacher options for placement, as well as possible promotions to school director, or to various teacher leadership positions at the school and/or department levels. Teachers, we were told, view their evaluations as a right. The evaluations, however, are not linked to evidence of student learning at the classroom or school levels. Teacher union membership is not compulsory; approximately 70% of teachers are members. Principals retain union membership although no longer in the classroom. The union leaders that we interviewed were generally supportive of the CEIBAL ICT initiatives, while affirming the emphasis on teacher autonomy, the need for support, and the challenges of teachers current working conditions. System leadership: With the existence of the four autonomous councils, along with ANEP, CEIBAL and a newly established independent evaluation institute, Uruguay effectively operates with several parallel systems, resulting in some duplications and a perception among some stakeholders of little coherence when it comes to directions, priorities and support. Attempts at greater coordination often involve representatives from one organization or agency attending meetings of another, in efforts to further communication and mutual awareness. Again we note the tensions in trying to foster coherence in a bureaucratic system that also has such a heavy emphasis on autonomy in its constituent agencies.

4.

CEIBAL First phase (2006-2009): A matter of access.

Launch and early development

Officially launched by presidential decree (President Vazquez in 2007), CEIBAL reports directly to the President rather than to or through ANEP or MEC, an arrangement that has provided a high degree of autonomy for CEIBALs decisions and actions. The original conception was an initiative to foster social inclusion, addressing the digital gap in which affluent families and communities have access to technology and the internet while economically disadvantaged communities do not. Plan CEIBAL would ensure that all citizens have access to digital technologies and the internet. The initial commitment was to provide one laptop, with internet connectivity, for all children and teachers in public education, a commitment later extended to independent/private schools. Implementation began in 2007 with a tender process for the provision and delivery of laptops to primary schools. The chosen laptop, the sturdy XO, won the tender by a far margin on price. By 2009, virtually all primary schools had their XOs, most with internet access. CEIBAL then extended the program to secondary schools, while also replacing the original internet connections with fiber optics, where available.

 Early in the development of CEIBAL, several supporting volunteer initiatives emerged, connecting to Plan CEIBAL in various ways. These include an association of volunteers to promote the development of free educational software, a loose network of over 1000 volunteers recruited through CEIBAL to provide technical support, and the Uruguayan network of community infocenters. In the early phases, few education experts were involved. The support activities mainly addressed technical problems, although the volunteer networks served as channels of information about implementation progress and challenges and perhaps strengthened the connections between schools and communities. Plan CEIBAL has widespread political and public support, with a 92% approval rating in public polls. Everyone we met in Uruguay was aware of and apparently supportive of CEIBAL, including those who had no connection with the education system. By 2012 570,000 laptops had been distributed, covering all students and teachers. Virtually all schools (and thus all students and teachers) have internet access in the school. Technology resources were also distributed to faculty and students in teacher training centers. While internet connections had been reported as unreliable in some schools, initial connections are being replaced by fiber optics, with a commitment to upgrade all urban schools by the end of 2013. Alternatives such as solar panels are provided for small isolated schools. Access points in several hundred community centers or other gathering spots also provide free internet connections. The cost of the CEIBAL program has been modest: the 4-year TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is approximately $400 for four years, $100 per year per child. This figure includes the laptops, replacement of laptops after 4 years of use, repairs, internet costs, administrative costs, fiber optic costs, robotics, planned video conference facilities, the portal and platforms (plataforma) for LMS (Learning Management System) as well as digital resources for mathematics, reading and other subjects. The cost figures also include initial training provided for teachers to familiarize them with the technology and how to use it. Training has been available for all teachers, at first using a cascade model in which a few people were trained and then trained others, now supplemented by ipersonal or online support in schools. Although the expectation seems to have been that teaching and learning would eventually change through widespread access to use of technology, there was no overt pressure initially on schools or teachers to actually put the tools and applications into practice. All teachers have access to new resources and technical training in their use, but they have been able to choose whether and when to use XOs and how they might integrate such use into teaching and learning activities on a routine basis. CEIBAL has a culture very oriented to action, along with leaders who are creative and determined problem solvers; these characteristics help explain success. CEIBALs independence has also been important; the rapid introduction and distribution of XOs and internet would have been difficult through established bureaucracies. During the first phase of Plan CEIBAL there was clarity about the desired and intended outcomes distribution of XOs to all students and teachers, provision of internet connections to schools and community centers and, as a result of such actions, reducing the digital divide and promoting social 8

 inclusion. In short, the purpose of the first phase was access. Although the task was far from easy, problems were identified and addressed as they arose. When strategies proved unsuccessful, new strategies were developed. For example, the original plan had been for families to use the postal service to return damaged XOs for repair. For a number of reasons, the plan did not work; CEIBAL quickly moved to a fleet of repair vans that would go to schools to repair XOs and handle other technical issues. During this initial phase there were few education experts involved in Plan CEIBAL and support for users was geared almost entirely to solving technical problems. As we will outline in the next section, in CEIBALs second phase the emphasis has shifted to encouraging a greater focus on use of technology in teaching and learning, thereby evolving from a focus on ensuring equitable access to the technologies to equitable access to improvements in student learning supported and enhanced by technology use.

5.

CEIBAL Second phase (2010-present): Adding support elements.

Plan CEIBAL in transition

CEIBAL continues to report directly to the president, funded directly rather than through the ANEP education budget (although the ANEP budget now also allocates funds -- approximately 2.5 million dollars -- for specific supports, such as CEIBAL resource teachers at the school and department levels). In 2010, a parliamentary law established the Centro CEIBAL, shifting CEIBAL from a project to an established and still autonomous agency, protected from short-term political considerations. For this second phase of CEIBAL development, the distribution and connection infrastructure is in place and the social goal of equitable access to technology has been largely achieved. Now the focus has shifted from inclusion and access to the integration of technology into classroom practice, emphasizing the educational use of the technology. In early stages, teachers were certainly affected by all their students having XOs (Ceibalitas) but they were not pushed to do anything in particular with the technology. Now they would be encouraged to participate more actively in this initiative; CEIBAL has developed resources and make these widely available to teachers and schools. Throughout this second phase, CEIBAL seems to have two objectives; first, supporting teachers/schools in the use of technology and, second, pushing/nudging for change in classrooms and in the broader system.

Teacher and student use of XOs in classrooms

In a major initiative such as Plan CEIBAL, it is always useful to get information about what is happening on the ground, in this case, in classrooms and schools, as a basis for further action. To what extent and how were teachers and students using XOs and the internet in their classrooms and at home for educational purposes? CEIBALs monitoring and evaluation unit has carried out annual (2009, 2010, 2011) surveys of teachers and students in a representative sample of 200 primary schools, as well as contracting for assessments of the CEIBAL call center and other CEIBAL related services. The findings from these reports are summarized in a cumulative powerpoint report consulted for our research (Evaluacin Annual en Primaria 2009-2011, Agosto 2012, Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal). An independent report by the Institute of Education Evaluation at the Catholic University, with Pedro Ravela as the senior author (Ravela, Perez Gomar, Valverde, & Filardo, 2012), looked at teacher perceptions, accessed via surveys and interviews, supplemented by their classroom observations of XO

 use in a sample of schools. That report has sparked considerable interest and some controversy in the primary education world. Although the sample was relatively small and the data were collected before recent pedagogical support initiatives from CEIBAL would have had impact, the report provides a useful if incomplete independent snapshot of technology use in early Phase 2. The teacher and student survey data collected by CEIBAL researchers confirm equity in access to the XO laptop computers and the internet in primary schools. The surveys also asked teachers and students about the frequency and nature of ICT use in school and at home. While we need not review all the findings here, the following highlights illustrate the breadth and nature of XO supported educational use of ICT by students and teachers. The overall percentage of students and teachers reporting use of the XO in class at least one or two times a week in 2010 and 2011 was about 80%. Both students and teachers, however, indicated a slight decline in the proportion reporting XO use three or more times per week, a finding the researchers suggest could reflect that the novelty of the technology from when first introduced was wearing off. Teachers reported the average number of hours per week allocated to XO use was 4 hours in 2010 and 3.5 hours in 2011 (fairly substantial for common schools with 20 hours classroom contact time). Among students, the XOs are used mainly for school work in class (80% in 2011), followed by entertainment (71%) and homework (49%). Several survey questions asked about the kinds of XO supported activities students use. Overall, the major classroom uses reported were to look for information on the internet (83%), programming (49%)2, and word processing/writing (44%). About 50% of students also reported that they read books on their computers several times a week. In the 2011 survey, teachers reported the greatest subject integration of XOs into teaching and learning in language arts (39% of respondents) followed by social studies (26%), science (15%), mathematics (9%), and arts (4%). The low use of the XOs in mathematics likely contributed to the recent CEIBAL initiative to develop and introduce an adaptive math program application in 2013 and 2014. A majority of teachers (8 of 10) surveyed in 2011 reported that they had modified their classroom instructional practices in various ways such as developing new strategies (72%--the practical meaning of new strategies is undefined), promoting collaborative work among students (70%), diversifying learning materials (67%), using virtual resources (49%), and using new tools for student evaluation (22%). Half (50%) the teachers reported that their personal knowledge (presumably of subject content) had also grown as a result. The CEIBAL surveys of teachers and surveys in a representative sample of schools in Montevideo and in the interior of the country clearly indicate that XO supported technology use is happening on a wide scale in Uruguayan primary schools. This is a positive accomplishment that goes beyond mere access to the technology. At the same time, however, the surveys do not provide much information and insight into the quality of use and its actual effects on the quality of student learning in different subject areas, or in terms of higher order learning goals such as complex problem solving, critical thinking, and inquiry 2 *The XOs come loaded with some basic arts and animation programming software applications (Scratch, Tortugarte, Pippy, and Etoys).

10

 and self-directed learning. The expectation and goal that technology use might move beyond the use of technology as an information gathering tool, word processing, and graphics applications on a wide scale remains a challenging goal for the future of CEIBAL to support, demonstrate, and document. Teacher perceptions about CEIBAL, as independently reported by Ravela and colleagues in their research study, are generally consistent with the CEIBAL evaluation reports, particularly with regard to social inclusion. In terms of educational benefits, teachers and principals saw XOs as another tool to use in teaching, but may not have integrated XOs and the internet extensively into their daily practice. Although a substantial proportion of teachers made use of the XOs on a regular basis, the researchers concluded that many were not yet using teaching methods that took full advantage of the technological resources. Their surveys and classroom observations indicated that teachers generally planned classes on their own; the researchers concluded that lack of teacher-teacher collaboration was limiting the potential impact of XO in the classroom. Such a conclusion is consistent with research on school improvement and teacher change (Fullan, 2011). In summary, the Ravela research team saw the XO and the internet as potentially powerful tools to facilitate learning. At the time of their data gathering, however, they concluded these powerful tools were still underutilized. Recent CEIBAL inputs, as described further on, may be stimulating greater and pedagogically deeper use in student learning. In the next sections, we outline how CEIBAL, often in collaboration with CEIP or ANEP, has encouraged and supported greater use of these potentially powerful educational resources.

Early CEIBAL supports

CEIBAL leaders have long recognized that teachers would need to be part of initiatives to increase use of technology and integrate technology into classroom practice. But what strategies would lead teachers to use the XO in their practice? The early CEIBAL strategies stressed the importance of universal access to the technology (XOs, internet, resources), ease of use (making the teachers job easier) and the power of student engagement to motivate teachers (if students are engaged with XOs, teachers will make increasing use of the technology and associated resources). A variety of programs were developed or adapted for use with the XO and widely distributed; XOs came preloaded with a range of software. While strategies such as these certainly contribute to teacher change, on their own they are not powerful enough to be drivers of change (Fullan, 2011). For example, access is important but without a compelling reason to use the technology, teachers may not take advantage of its accessibility. Similarly, making the teachers job easier may not lead to a fundamental change in teaching practice; teachers may use digital resources as they used traditional textbooks to teach lessons in which they give information to students. Of course student engagement is important, for its own sake and to foster student learning. However, teachers may allow or even encourage student use without this having any effect on how lessons are planned and/or taught and without clear links to curriculum objectives. CEIBAL focused initially on access, awareness and ease of use. But for widespread use, these supports will not be sufficient. Widespread use and quality implementation will require a partnership between CEIBAL and government authorities that we take up in our later recommendations. Recognition of the

11

 challenges has led CEIBAL, along with educational partners CEIP and ANEP, to introduce a range of more focused and more powerful supports for technology integration.

More powerful supports

Teachers are more likely to try new practices if they are supported in doing so; even more crucial is ongoing support to foster continued implementation. As we will outline below, CEIBAL, often working with some part of the education system, has developed a wide range of resources. Many of these additional supports are human the creation or expansion of a range of staff positions to support or coordinate various initiatives related to technology and learning. Other supports are material curriculum resources, increased access to material on school servers and new initiatives such as adaptive mathematics and the Plataforma CREA. We briefly review a sample of such supports. Direct human resource support to schools Probably the most crucial development has been the creation of new positions within the primary education system (CEIP) to provide direct support to schools and teachers around the integration of technology in daily practice: most particularly, the new position of Maestros de Apoyo CEIBAL (MAC) and the Maestros Dinamizadores (defined below). ANEP and the Primary Education Council, with support and some funding from CEIBAL, created positions to provide the direct in-school support that is sorely needed if more than a few teachers are going to use technology with skill and understanding, and if schools are going to integrate technology into classroom practice on a broad scale. We offer a brief description and commentary on these various ICT implementation support positions and their mission. The Maestros de Apoyo CEIBAL (MAC) position was established to meet the need for greater in- school support if teachers are to integrate use of XOs with teaching and with the curriculum. The first 130 were appointed in April 2012, with another 300 in August. A MAC, based in a school, is a mentor...to work with peers assisting with ICT implementation in the curriculum and classroom. MACS are expected to work with teachers, not with students; in other words, they are not meant to solve student technical problems or to replicate the teaching role of traditional computer lab teachers. The MACs compete for their posts, with official selection criteria being knowledge of ICT, teaching expertise, knowledge of school community and good interpersonal relations skills. The appointments are for one year at 20 hours a week. It is unclear how many MAC positions will eventually be created, although numbers may be constrained by financial considerations, as well as by a national teacher shortage (a school must fill classroom positions before a MAC can be appointed, which reduces the pool of qualified MACs). In such a newly created role, ongoing professional learning will be essential if MACS are to fulfill their potential in terms of fostering integration of technology. The current practice of one-year appointments is not conducive to the sustained development of the MACs ICT and peer coaching expertise, nor to the continuity of their support to colleagues for ICT integration. Maestros Dinamizadores are appointed at the department inspectorate level, acting as external consultants to clusters of schools. They focus their work on schools that do not have MACs, delivering courses or facilitating activities that bring together teachers from several schools (e.g., Ferias CEIBAL, periodic meetings across schools). The establishment of the Dinamizador

12

 teacher positions preceded the MAC positions. The best ways to strategically coordinate teacher support for ICT integration between these two new positions are still being worked out. The creation of these and other support positions is highly significant; active steps were taken by the education system and CEIBAL to give teachers on-site support focused on integrating technology in classroom practice. It will be crucial for the roles to continue to focus on the pedagogical use of XOs and related technological resources. Occupants of such positions will need continuing professional learning support, preferably working collaboratively with their MAC and Dinamizador colleagues, as well as others in positions intended to support integration of technology in innovative ways. Adaptive mathematics program Plan CEIBAL has taken the lead in the development of adaptive platforms for mathematics that can be implemented across the primary school system; the initiatives are new but have the potential for changing teaching practice and improving student learning through more personalized pedagogical processes. The power of these programs is that differentiated learning activities will be built into the learning process for students using their XOs. Teachers will be able to plan the teaching progressions based on feedback about progress of individual students. Primary teachers are often uncertain about their mathematics expertise; a well designed and easy to use adaptive mathematics program could help solve a common classroom problem for such teachers. Digital textbooks Plan CEIBAL has been a key agent in negotiating agreements with publishers of nationally endorsed textbooks for elementary schools to make the required textbooks available in digital format; the textbooks will be available on school servers, avoiding the need for students to use the internet to access the appropriate text, and reducing the problem of insufficient textbooks for all students Online Student Assessment System. The online assessment system represents a fortuitous combination of ideas, resources and opportunities, with collaboration between key staff at ANEP and CEIBAL. A comprehensive student assessment process, formative and not summative, covers Grades 3 to 6 in literacy, mathematics and science. Questions are both multiple choice and open-ended. CEIBAL provided the opportunity to put this system online, avoiding the problems and costs of paper tests. By 2012 the majority of teachers were voluntarily using the online system, and in future the process will be entirely online. Teachers have student results as soon as the testing is completed; the results are available to the teacher and principal, but not to inspectors unless they visit and ask the teacher. In other words, teacher autonomy is respected, and aggregate results are only made public at the district, not the school level The test items have been developed to connect to the curriculum, ensuring that over time, teachers are likely to teach the material that is assessed, and may take action on identified gaps in student learning. According to teacher surveys administered by ANEP, reactions from teachers have been highly positive, with more than half agreeing that online evaluation contributes to learning improvement and 64% agreeing that online evaluation contributes to teaching practice improvement. Comments suggest that the assessment process helped teachers to rethink commonly used teaching strategies and

13

 encouraged innovation as well as promoting the integration of technology (XO) with learning. The adaptive mathematics program would contribute to capacity building in a similar fashion. Teachers are interested in understanding student results and are thus motivated to respond appropriately with teaching content and teaching strategies. This is an improvement strategy that can be owned by teachers. Plataforma CREA Plataforma CREA (Contents and Resources for Teaching and Learning) is a recently developed full service technology supported Learning Management System. Plataforma CREA provides a wealth of virtual teaching and learning resources (e.g., lesson planning template, access to teaching and learning materials available through the CEIBAL and Ministry portals). Plataforma CREA was initially introduced as a pilot project in about 45 schools, but was almost immediately made available across the school system. CEIBAL trainers have provided inservice training to introduce the Plataforma to CEIBAL support teachers and classroom teachers. The Plataforma has great potential for changing teaching practice. This potential will be more fully realized by ensuring that links to digital teaching and learning resources through the CEIBAL and other portals are linked to the curriculum expectations so that teachers can easily find material that they can use with or without individual adaptation for specific student learning needs. Other initiatives and supports Courses Courses, courses, courses: During our site visit, when we asked about ongoing support and capacity building for ICT use for educators, the initial response was framed in terms of courses that were offered, available, taken and so on. Well over a hundred CEIBAL related courses have been delivered nationally by Centro CEIBAL and through departmental level sources in 2012. Useful as such courses are there are several ongoing challenges. First, teacher participation is voluntary; teachers have to be motivated to take the courses. Second, there is a lack of coordination among the courses. Finally, there is insufficient follow-up to the initial courses back in the schools and classrooms, notwithstanding the CEIBAL resource/support roles at the department and school levels. Teachers are unlikely to make any changes to their practice based simply on course attendance; follow up support makes the difference. On the other hand, courses do develop awareness and some knowledge, as well as offering the possibility of networking with other participants. As we recommend later it is important that teachers be supported in the use of new ideas in their classroom practice, working individually and together, informed by evidence and supported by their school principals and MACs. Remote teaching of English In response to the shortage of English teachers, CEIBAL, together with key ANEP staff, started a program in which a class teacher works with students with the laptops and software for English learning, supported by a remote native English teacher connected to the class via video conference. CEIBAL has contracted with the British Council to provide all necessary organizational support for the program. A side effect of this initiative is that it has created the technical capacity and possibility for video sharing between schools.

14

 Increased support for servers in schools Provision of curriculum resources on school servers reduces dependence on internet connections, providing more flexibility, along with instant access to a range of material to enhance lessons. Robotics CEIBAL has introduced a robotics program in all secondary schools, technical schools, and full time primary schools, as well as some middle schools. One robotics kit is provided for every four students; a CEIBAL trainer provides an introductory workshop to teachers, who are then mostly on their own for implementation. Classroom teachers may have access to technology resource teachers (MACs, Dinamizadores), who will need to develop expertise in the pedagogical use of the robotics program if they are to provide effective support.

Dissemination of innovative practice

CEIBAL leaders want to promote integration of technology into teaching by connecting teachers with other teachers who are doing interesting things, as opposed to relying on external experts and specialists to be the ambassadors. Efforts are underway to identify promising practices in schools, drawing upon knowledge of innovative uses from people in the field like the MACs, Dinamizadores teachers and zone Inspectors. CEIBAL is trying to develop a format and system for documenting these practices in a way that would make them portable and replicable elsewhere. Two current strategies for dissemination are national and departmental CEIBAL ferias (learning fairs where schools demonstrate selected applications), and the CEIBAL Portal, which has a place for teachers to input teacher designed lessons that integrate technology. These are positive steps towards dissemination of innovative uses of the technologies, though links between these practices to evidence of improvements in student learning is difficult to demonstrate. One possibility that we recommend be explored is whether CEIBAL could work with the new national education evaluation institute to develop strategies for rapid, but methodologically sound documentation and spread of innovative practices that could be carried out at the school level with support from the evaluation institute and/or from MACs and Dinamizadores.

Challenges accompanying rich resources

We have only briefly reviewed the multiplicity of resources and supports now provided to schools and teachers, including courses, direct support, and the wide variety of resources available through Plataforma CREA. One challenge emerging from our conversations and school visits is a perceived need for greater focus and coherence, along with some guidance about navigating through the wealth of choices. Given CEIBALs desire to make teachers lives easier, it will important to provide guidance to ease the process and prevent teachers being overwhelmed by the richness of the resources and range of choices. This challenge may be addressed in part by shifting towards an implementation strategy that is more oriented towards teachers working collectively rather than individually, and focused on more explicit evidence and goals for improvement in student learning. As well, teachers and students need time, opportunity and support to learn to use applications and resources effectively; otherwise superficial use may prevail.

15

Strengthening and expanding connections with the school system

As CEIBAL has focused more explicitly on integration of technology with teaching and learning, connections between CEIBAL and the school system have become increasingly important. What have been the connections between CEIBAL and the school system? What has CEIBAL done to strengthen the links? What continuing and future roles can CEIBAL play in changing teaching and learning? Are there other strategies for strengthening the links between CEIBAL and the school system, particularly the Primary Education Council (CEIP)? Without such connections, it will be difficult to achieve and sustain any major shifts in classroom practice. From the beginning, CEIBAL has involved education stakeholders and leaders as members of its board(s) and various advisory groups. As well, many of the recent initiatives that we have outlined above are being developed or implemented collaboratively CEIBAL in partnership with some part of the education system or at least key people from the system. All these efforts serve to strengthen clarity, coherence, and sustainability of efforts to integrate technology in teaching and learning. In the last year or two, to strengthen connections on the ground, CEIBAL has appointed specialist advisors from the education system to assist with the design and implementation of specific initiatives. The credibility that such advisors bring strengthens the relationships between CEIBAL and the school system, as well as ensuring quality in educational programs. The impact of these new positions is likely to increase as the work of CEIBAL and that of CEIP become more closely integrated.

Transitioning from Phase 2

Throughout this crucial phase of moving from an emphasis on access to an emphasis on use in daily teaching practice, CEIBAL has been focused not only on increasing the use of XOs and the internet, but also encouraging broader change in the system. What is this change? CEIBAL wants more openness to change/new ideas, more flexibility, less rigidity, more use of technology in teaching, changes in teaching (integration of tools into pedagogy), and greater institutional capacity for system-wide reform. The stage has now been set for the next phase, quality implementation.

6.

Next Phase 2013 onwardfocus on quality implementation

We have characterized the first phase as A Matter of Access and the second as Adding Support Elements. These have been appropriate startup actions to set the stage for further development. The next phase is the hardest one because it involves quality Implementation. We recommend that the system focus on four interrelated areas that will systematically support quality implementation and its spread across the whole system. These recommendations represent major changes in the roles and culture of the entire system. In this sense it will be a huge challenge to accomplish them. On the other hand we found a great deal of support for the direction and substance of the changes we recommend in this section. With clear leadership, and a responsive system much progress can be made in the next three years. It wont be easy but it could be enormously rewarding to be engaged in such a transformation of the system that will benefit the whole country.

16

 The four recommendations are: 1. Focus on a small number (3) of ambitious goals as core priorities. 2. CEIBAL and education authorities at all levels to jointly develop the infrastructure to support implementation of the core priorities in a clear, specific, ongoing way. 3. Develop the roles of Inspectors, MACs, Dinamizadors, and school principals to support implementation in and across schools. 4. Develop the professional capacity of teachers, and related working conditions (e.g. small amounts of time) that would increase the capacity of teachers, individually and collectively to implement the core priorities.

1. Focus on a small number of ambitious goals as core priorities.

Successful systems, especially those at the beginning of an improvement cycle focus on a small number of key goals and ours and pursue them relentlessly. We recommend three: i) ii) iii) Literacy (both Spanish and English) Mathematics Reduction of repetition of grades especially in grades 6, 7 and 8 with the goal of increasing high school graduation rates.

It will be necessary to sort out CEIBALs role in each of these priorities. In the first two CEIBAL could be a lead partner, while in the third goalreducing repetition-- they may play more of a support role to authorities. Focusing on the three priorities does not mean that there are no other educational goals that are valued just that these three are elevated as core priorities. These particular three are valuable because they are turnkeys to educational success in other domains of schooling. The other three recommendations below are all in the service of the three goals. Another key feature of guiding this agenda is the establishment of what we have come to call the guiding coalition. This is a group of top leaders from the main groupsEducation Authorities, CEIBAL, etc who meet regularly and in subgroups in between meetings in order to oversee the implementation of the priorities and to take decisions to strengthen implementation when necessary. This group must have clarity on two things: the main goals and the strategies that are being used to fulfill the goals.

2. CEIBAL and the Education Authorities to jointly develop the infrastructure to support implementation of the core priorities in a clear, specific, ongoing way.
Elements of the necessary infrastructure have already been out in place in phase two. It is time to make these systematic in the service implementation. Two components in particular are essential: the online student assessment system, and Platforma CREA. CEIBAL should work with the education authorities to establish a user-friendly digital data system that provides to schools and teachers ongoing, timely assessment of student learning according to the priorities. It is equally important that curriculum and

17

 instruction resources linked to curriculum expectations be developed and made available digitally though the CEIBAL and government portals. Other critical aspects of this will require identifying and accessing good examples of effective practices that combine good data and related practices that produce results. It is also crucial that the whole enterprise be positioned as non-judgmental, i.e. the primary purpose of the infrastructure is as a strategy for improvement not as a means of accountability. When this is done it turns out that the needs of public accountability are served. There is already a very good basis established in this priority, but it will require careful detailed work to produce on an ongoing basis usable data and examples. It will require leadership as well as increased capacity of teachers (recommendations 3 and 4). In reviewing all the initiatives and resources developed over the past few years, we believe that the online student assessment system has the greatest potential for a credible and compelling reason for teachers to work together, ideally with principals, to make sense of the immediate feedback on student learning progress and outcomes linked to the national curriculum when their students have completed the online assessments. Our impression from discussions with leaders is that the potential of the online assessment process to provide a compelling reason to use and integrate technology into teaching practice is just now being contemplated. Up to this point expectations for teachers have focused more on access to various teaching tools and activities, on the assumption that knowledge about these will lead teachers to adopt them. We recommend that CEIBAL and the ANEP staff who know most about the potential of the online assessment process explore more fully how this could help provide a focus for teachers that can be linked to ICT integration in the service of improving evidence-based gaps in student learning with respect to literacy, math and retention of students (reduction of grade repetition).

3. Develop the roles of Inspectors and school principals to support implementation in and across schools.
CEIBAL leaders, along with senior personnel in other agencies, talk about the integration of ICT into teaching and learning leading to a change in mind set among teachers and students. Roles will change, with teachers no longer being Wikipedia teachers, just giving out information. However, apart from using XOs and associated resources as tools (new materials, new media/text sources of information and new means of production) it is unclear what this change in mind set would look like in practice. We found no clear consistent idea of what teachers pedagogical role should be in leading, guiding the use of ICT in teaching and learning process. Developing such clarity will require new leadership roles from inspectors and school principals. Incidentally, one the new developments in the area of instruction is the clarification of the roles of the teacher and student in relation to deeper learning goals including the role of technology in accelerating learning. What is becoming clear is that the new role of teacher is teacher as activator, not teacher as facilitatora finding that surfaced in John Hatties meta-analysis research. More work needs to be done in developing this new role relationship between teachers and students. Thus, in this third phase it will be essential that the relationship between pedagogy/instruction and technology for learning be a key aspect of the new developments that will be required.

18

 What is needed is a strategy that identifies and spreads specific good teaching practices that uses technology and increases student engagement and learning. In keeping with CEIBAL and government philosophy, and indeed in keeping with good change theory, these developments should occur in a non- prescriptive manner. They should focus on ease of use; they should be specific and clear; there should be a system for teachers to easily find out about them; and teachers should be encouraged and supported to use them. The challenge is that the new role of teacher using technology for greater learning is not yet well defined in ways that can be practically communicated, demonstrated, and replicated by classroom teachers; it is thus not surprising that teachers, unsure of their own role, might hesitate. To ease that concern, CEIBAL and others, particularly CEIP, need to continue work on developing concrete and precise descriptions of the kind of teaching that is the goal. Such descriptions need to be backed up by examples, covering various topics and age levels, of lessons and units that exemplify such teaching. Our admittedly limited observations in schools suggest the new resources are being used to plan and deliver quite traditional teacher-directed lessons, with teachers continuing to guide students step-by-step and exercising control over the selection of supplementary learning resources accessible through ICT use. Our main recommendation for supporting and directing implementation will require clarifying, developing and coordinating the leadership roles that are close to schools, namely re-positioning and strengthening the roles of inspectors, principals, MACS and Dinamizadors. The new leadership roles we are recommending will require a major overhaul of the roles of inspectors and principals. This represents a huge change in the culture of the system. Currently the system is not organized for improvement but rather for maintenance. Inspectors evaluate individual teachers which is useful and certainly serves the deployment of teachers requirement, but does not serve the school improvement function. Similarly school principals currently do not play much of a role in school and system improvement. MACs and Dinamizadors have not been systematically developed and positioned. We recommend that the role of MACS/Dinamizadors be reviewed with the goal of clarifying their roles, increasing their numbers, and training and supporting them in their work. The shift we are talking about will not be easy, but we did encounter a good deal of interest at all levels in the system about moving in this direction. We do not detail this change here because it will require careful deliberation, consultation and action on the part of system leaders and members. This will require a double change: altering the current system, and introducing a new one. We offer preliminary thoughts here but stress once again that system leaders will need to establish the new requirements through a process of consultation and development. We offer a few observations here, with the aim of stimulating discussion of alternatives: (i) Retain the personnel appraisal and teacher allocation system, but perhaps reduce the frequency of teacher evaluation depending on prior evaluations and "tenure" (years of experience). This could open up more inspector time for something like school reviews.

19

 (ii) Inspector led school reviews linked to their school "institutional project" plans (which should include more explicit targets for improvement in student learning in priority areas, and related actions), that would only occur every other year or every third year....There are a large number of zone inspectors in the primary system (over 200) serving around 2500 schools, which suggests that on average they are responsible for about 12 schools each. In the kind of school review system envisioned each zone inspector might lead four to six school reviews a year. The school review process could be led by multi-role teams that include, for example, inspectors, departmental technology specialists, and a couple of principals from other schools. A school review team might include two zone inspectors (the one who normally supervises the school and one other) to help build collegial capacity and coherence across the inspectors. We would imagine school reviews to be improvement and support focused, not judgment focused. However, some criteria/standards would need to be built in to create group incentives for the school...which could include a group financial incentive left to discretion of principals and teachers how to use. We think that by separating "school reviews" from individual personnel appraisal (teachers and principals) , organizing the reviews by teams, and by including school self study as a part at the school level, this could help separate the teacher appraisal/allocation function from the collective monitoring and support function. During a 'school review' year maybe the government could "fund" some additional "teacher coordination" time for teachers and principals to collaborate in self study and preparing for review and their school plan.

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

Of course, this would require a capacity development effort nationally to guide and support inspectors into taking on this new role and responsibilities... including development of a school review framework and process...and support for learning how to do it. In summary, there will need to be a significant cultural shift in the roles of inspectors and school principals. This will require formal redefinition of the roles, new criteria for promotion to the roles, mentoring and appraisal feedback to those inhabiting the roles, plenty of professional development, and the identification and spread of new practices that represent the best examples of the new role in practice. All of these need to be linked to progress relative to the three priorities. This recommendation is at the heart of the reform we are recommending.

20

4. Develop the professional capacity of teachers, and related working conditions (e.g., small amounts of time) that would increase the capacity of teachers, individually and collectively to implement the core priorities.
The previous three recommendations are all designed to feed into and support this fourth recommendation. Without increases in the individual and collective capacity of teachers it will not possible to accomplish the priorities that we set out. There are four aspects to the new capacities of teachers: i) focus, ii) individual learning of teachers, iii) team or collective learning, and iv) working conditions of teachers. We touch on these briefly. Focus means concentrating on the three core priorities of literacy, math and school engagement for continuation to graduation. Individual learning means developing the instructional capacities of teachers, starting with teacher pre-service preparation, and continuing into teaching and the career. Team learning or what we call social capital involves collaboration among teachers focused on the ongoing learning of teachers. And working conditions means pay and other forms of compensation, time to work together, and being well led and supported by school leaders and by those in the infrastructure such as inspectors. Among other matters the fact that many teachers continue to teach two shifts in one day will have to be addressed so that teachers have some time to collaborate on identifying and responding to needs for improvement in student learning. One question about instructional capacity is what is meant by the new forms of teaching and technology use. ICT use is often spoken of as an undifferentiated practice, though everyone knows that it is not. There is basic use of technology tools for conventional but enhanced teaching and learning (expanded source of information through internet, digital libraries; word processing). There is the use of specific software programs. There is the potential use for more collaborative learning via remote media. Then there is wide variation presently in the frequency of use for teaching and learning in schools. Technology resources could be integrated throughout the school day in all subject areas. Or, in many schools and classrooms, technology is only used at certain times and certain subjects. It might be useful for Plan CEIBAL to work with professionals in the education system on clarifying images of alternative models of XO and related internet use (perhaps do some more research on actual uses in classrooms; the Ravela study was early), and perhaps conceptualize them in a kind of developmental framework which recognizes different levels of expertise as legitimate uses, but some more advanced/ideal than others. Presently, there is little clear direction for teachers for what is expected in the short and long term in the classroom, nor for leaders from a system perspective. People are free to do what they want and have no sense of a journey toward any particular goal individually or collectively. The gist of our recommendations is to give focus to what teachers do. Thus, the system should strengthen both individual teacher capacity, and team or school capacity to use ICT in relation to the core recommendations we have made. Thus our recommendation four is to concentrate on individual capacity building relative to the three core priorities and the instructional and leadership capacities that will be required to increase learning.

21

 Although several developmental models might be appropriate, we suggest that CEIBAL consider something like the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2012, p.2), which indicates levels of use, starting at substitution, moving through augmentation to modification and finally redefinition. Applying this model to the integration of technology into teaching can have profound results; the task and possible outcomes become clearer, the technology becomes invisible and the learning at hand takes priority. Furthermore, the model respects the incremental reality of teacher development and change. Figure 1 shows a stripped down version of the model. Figure 1: SAMR: Thoughts for Design model:

Fullan and others have stressed the importance of capacity building whenever large -scale change is introduced, stressing that capacity building trumps judgmentalism and clarifying that capacity building concerns the knowledge, skills, and disposition of people individually but especially collectively. It is the group with shared purpose and skills that gets things done (Fullan, 2011). CEIBAL has wisely avoided judgmentalism, in making technology and associated resources freely available but without any consequences or sanctions for educators who have not made use of XOs and associated programs. However, rather than a strong emphasis on capacity building, CEIBALs strategies (following introductory training) have been to provide more and more resources, giving teachers a plethora of options. Until recently, the capacity building focus has been on creating and delivering training courses to teachers in use of XOs, internet and associated tools/resources. As teacher familiarity with the technology has increased, so has the emphasis on the integration of such tools and resources into the classroom teaching on a regular basis. More recently, the creation of support positions, particularly MACS and Dinamizador teachers, is intended to build capacity in teachers and others. But there does not appear to be any systematic coordination of this work aligned to school and regional plans. The latter coordination is the new work of inspectors and school leaders that we addressed in recommendation 3. As we indicated earlier, focusing at the school level on understanding data from the online student assessment, and then working out how best to address student needsfor example, using data from the online assessments embedded in the new Adaptive Mathematics program could be a powerful strategy for collective

22

 capacity building. Teachers could also access resources to do this either through the repository of lessons and items being developed by ANEP or through CEIBALs Plataforma CREA and Portal. We would also note that MACS and Dinamizador teachers will need ongoing professional development to enact their ICT leadership and support roles. This could be done collectively; CEIBAL and CEIP leaders acknowledge the value of collaborative work in building collective capacity across the system. Future strategies to encourage/support innovative XO use should put more emphasis on communication and sharing, through teacher interaction within and across schools. The argument is that teachers themselves will be more credible to their peers, and will generate more interest among peers, than hearing about ICT and its uses from external experts. We would agree but continued and systematic support is needed if such networks are to go beyond the already converted. As we said working conditions will have to be addressed. The Ravela report and many of the education personnel we interviewed emphasize that without changes in primary school working conditions it will remain difficult for teachers to develop sufficient competence and confidence to use technological resources in ways that involve new and more powerful teaching strategies. Teachers are with students for the four-hour school day; with such a short school day, all of it has to be instructional time. The problem is that teachers are usually working in another school for another four hours, leaving no time for teachers to explore ICT possibilities, plan use, analyze and reflect on applications, and doubling expectations for their engagement in school improvement work from one to two schools. We recognize that CEIP has acknowledged the need for teachers to have time designated for collective work; all schools will progressively be funded for eight Saturday morning sessions throughout the year, with teacher attendance voluntary but paid. In sum, capacity buildingdeveloping the knowledge, skills and commitmentof teachers and support leaders (principals and support leaders) should be a priority in this third phase and should be carried out to push and support the other recommendations in this section. These capacity building efforts should support individual teacher development, as well as team work or what we called collective capacity building.

7.

Conclusion

As part of the continuing evolution of education reform in Uruguay it will be necessary to identify, document and share effective and innovative use of ICT with respect to the three core priorities and other goals. There are multiple things being done, and possibilities being discussed. The CEIBAL Ferias at national and departmental level (at initiative of department Inspectors and their technology teams) are one kind of event that draws attention to interesting uses of technology. The CEIBAL Portal and Plataforma CREA allow for creation and electronic access to a bank of lessons aligned with the curriculum (subject, grade, objectives, etc) that are accessible through the XO and internet tools and perhaps school servers. These will be a valuable resource/tool if teachers feel a need to use it. We are told that there are over a 23

 thousand lessons on the system available to interested teachers (individually). There is talk about and some examples (Ravela study) of documenting innovative and effective practices with video and making them accessible via the Portal, etc., to supplement actual lessons and so on. But no one really knows what to video tape--the teacher walking around the room fixing technical problems? Teachers coaching students about their learning? The products? Furthermore, there are interesting but unresolved debates about the potential purpose and use of videos as sources of information about exemplary practices, or more modestly as stimuli for teacher reflection on their pedagogy and ICT use. We hope in this report that we have provided a more systematic framework in relation to our four sets of recommendations to guide this work across the system, CEIBAL, as an autonomous agency enjoying wide public approval along with presidential support, is able to initiate and implement initiatives that would be much more problematic if they originated within the education system. In our interviews during the October site visit, the Uruguayan system was often described as rigid or resistant to change. We would agree that educational bureaucracies in most jurisdictions are by definition bureaucratic, and thus constrained by policies, organizational traditions and uncertainty about who might take responsibility for initiatives that do not fit neatly into the existing administrative structures. In this next phase what we have called focused implementation it is clear that CEIBAL and education authorities must partner to accomplish the agenda we have laid out within our four recommendations. In our interviews and observation we observed very strong rapport across these agencies. So the conditions for strong partnership with a more focused and systematic agenda are already favorable. With the establishment of the Centro CEIBAL and the inclusion of CEIBAL in the ANEP recent five year plan (ANEP, 2010, p. 61-62), CEIBAL and its position are secure for the foreseeable future. The question is how best to leverage the influence of CEIBAL as an autonomous agency with the need for greater changes in teaching and learning, and how CEIBAL can strengthen its support for internal capacity building for ICT integration into teaching and learning to improve student learning within the education system? As we close we would like to reiterate that the overall focus needs to be on the integration of technology, pedagogy and change knowledge as we discussed page 5. New more effective instructional practices in the areas of literacy and mathematics for example are needed, and we would say their impact can be stronger if technology if used to accelerate access to ideas and data. This degree of coordination will require the partnership of CEIBAL and government authorities at all levels. CEIBAL should continue to be a catalyst for change---seeding innovation, helping to provide focus for improvement across the system, generating collaboration and energy for system stakeholders to take action. And the system itself should increase its role, as we have recommended, as a strong partner in leading system improvement. Leaders in CEIBAL and in the Uruguayan school system are to be congratulated on taking the lead in providing all students in the country with access to technology. They are now taking on the challenge of trying to figure out how to accomplish widespread implementation across the whole system. They are

24

 entering the most crucial phase of all because it will determine if they are to progress relative to other systems in South America and beyond in terms of the performance of students as measured by PISA and other international comparisons.

25

8.

References and Sources Consulted

Delgado, Y. (2012). Aspectos generales del sistema educativo Uruguayo y su vinculacion con Ceibal (PowerPoint slides). Montevideo, Uruguay: Plan Ceibal. Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2011). Segundo informe nacional de monitoreo y evaluacin de impacto social del Plan Ceibal, 2010. Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2011). Encuesta a docentes de educacin media pblica sobre acceso, dominio y uso de herramientas TIC. Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2012). El impacto de Ceibal en el acceso. [PowerPoint slides] Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2012).Evaluacin anual en primaria 2009-2011. [PowerPoint slides] Departamento de Monitoreo y Evaluacin Plan Ceibal (2012).Resultados del monitoreo del estado del parque de XO en primaria. [PowerPoint slides] Gerencia de Desarrollo Social Plan Ceibal (2012). Informe de avance de implementacin programa Aprender Tod@s. Grupo Radar (2011). Informe de investigacin cuantitativa satisfaccin con el call center y servicio tcnico del Plan Ceibal.[PowerPoint slides] Grupo Radar (2012). Perfil del internauta uruguayo (9na ed.) [PowerPoint slides] Grupo Radar (2012). Evaluacin de Plan Ceibal estudio cuantitativo nacional. [PowerPoint slides]. Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Don Mills, ON: Pearson Canada, Inc. Fullan, M. (May 2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Seminar Series Paper No. 204. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education. Fullan, M. (2010a). All systems go. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press; Toronto: Ontario Principals Council. Fullan, M. (2010b). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Levin, B. (2011). System wide change in education. Education Policy Series, # 13. Paris: UNESCO, International Academy of Education. Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Martinez, A.L., Diaz, D. & Alonso, S. (2009). Primer informe nacional de monitoreo y evaluacin de impacto social del Plan Ceibal, 2009.

26

 Mourshed, M., Chinezi, C. and Barber, M. (2010) How the Worlds Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better, McKinsey and Company, London. Plan Ceibal. (2012). Informe: Aspectos generales del sistema educativo Uruguayo y su vinculacion con Ceibal. Montevideo, Uruguay: Author. Plan Ceibal (n.d.). Impacto de Plan Ceibal en el acceso y uso de las tecnologas de la informacin y la comunicacin. Plan Ceibal. (2009). First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal social impact, 2009: Executive summary. Montevideo, Uruguay: Author. Puentedura (2012). Levels of technology integration. https://sites.google.com/a/wvde.k12.wv.us/eett/Home/podcasting-resources/levels-of- technology-integration accessed January 2013. Ravela, P, Perez Gomar, G., Valverde, G., & Filardo, N. (2012). Impactos del plan ceibal en las prcticas de enseanza en las aulas de primaria. Instituto de Evaluacin Educativa, Universidad Catolica, Montevideo. Sistema de Evaluacin de Aprendizaje. (September 2012) Ya se han realizado ms de 450 mil evaluaciones en Lnea en escuelas pblicas y privadas. Retrieved from: http://www.anep.edu.uy/sea/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18:ya-se-han- realizado-mas-de-450-mil-evaluaciones-en-linea-en-escuelas-publicas-y- privadas&catid=7:novedades&Itemid=1 Shear, L., Gallagher, L. & Patel, D. (2011). Innovative Teaching and Learning Research: 2011 Findings and Interpretations. Redmond, WA: SRI International and Microsoft Corporation. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization & International Bureau of Education (UNESCO). (2010) World data on Education. (7 ed.) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2011). Plan CEIBAL in Uruguay: From pedagogical reality to an ICT road map for the future. Montevideo, Uruguay: Author.

27