Policy Assignment EDU 964

Identify and analyse a specified current policy priority; examine

the drivers for change which led to the development of this

policy, the theories of leadership and management which are

relevant to its implementation, and raise appropriate and

critical issues relating to the impact or potential impact of the

policy.

Glow: A Policy Analysis

One policy has been dominating the Scottish education environment since 2002.

Having been initiated by the previous governing administration, Curriculum for

Excellence (CfE) has been hailed as "one of the most ambitious programmes of

educational change ever undertaken in Scotland" (Leaning and Teaching

Scotland a 2007). The scope of the undertaking is extensive, since it attempts to

effect change within a supposedly coherent model of curriculum designed to

address the entire school age range from 3 – 18; unlike previous, more

piecemeal reforms which targeted specific stages within this range (Standard

Grade, 5-14 or Higher Still for example).

According to Learning and Teaching Scotland, the lead organisation charged by

the Scottish Government with the authoring, management and development of

this policy, its origins seem to have come from the national debate on

education, a nation-wide attempt in 2002 by the then Labour administration to

seek the views of the public on what matters to them in terms of education in

Scotland (Learning and Teaching Scotland b, 2009). The national debate gave

rise to a set of key priorities (The Scottish Executiveb, 2003) which offered a
starting point for the new curriculum policy. The new curriculum policy appears

to have a running mate, in the form of Glow; the national intranet for Scotland’s

education. Interestingly, there is an absence of reference to the use of

technologies in education within these key priorities, in spite of the fact that

much of the rhetoric around this parallel policy development, claims that CfE and

GLOW are interconnected (Learning and Teaching Scotland c , 2010).This begs

the question, is this a marriage made in heaven or are these two uneasy

bedfellows? Fascinating though it would be to explore the dynamics and tensions

of this relationship, it would require a separate paper entirely to do so. Given

constraints of time and length, it is therefore only on GLOW, the technological

strand of the CfE policy that I would like to focus for the purposes of this

assignment.

GLOW is the world’s first national intranet for education. It started life as the

Scottish Schools’ Digital Network (SSDN) and its ambitions were impressive: it

aimed to offer a broadband network which interconnects every school (including

teachers, pupils and parents), education authority and appropriate national

agency in Scotland. Its purpose is to offer complex models of educational

collaboration, and a mechanism by which Scottish education can begin to

transform itself to exploit the pedagogical riches the new information age has to

offer (National Intranet Draft Specification paper, 2002). This is further

elaborated in the following extract from the Draft Specification paper for the

National Intranet & Interconnect for Scottish Schools (2002):

“The national intranet will help to breakdown barriers to learning that exist and

have always existed. Geographical barriers will be minimised by the ability to

communicate in real time with people across the country and across the globe.

Social barriers will be lowered by the facility to bring young people together from
all walks of life. Pedagogical barriers will be eased by the immense capacity that

the intranet will provide for sharing of practice, ideas and experience. And

professional barriers can be further tackled by linking educational databases

with those in other educational domains, such as healthcare, social work,

children’s services and central government.” (Glow; draft specification, 2002)

Like Curriculum for Excellence, then, it is wide-ranging and ambitious in its

scope. Considering the above, Glow could be construed as a product (it is a

tangible, albeit virtual construct), but it is much more appropriate to interpret it

as a process policy, since because of its very nature, it can only exist as a policy,

or entity in its use and implementation and is organic in design; furthermore, as

a policy construct relating to technology, it will be subject to almost constant

change. Its designing principles, i.e. that it

• will serve teaching and learning primarily

• will offer universal access

• will be fully accessible

• will be platform independent

• will have open standards and be extensible

• will be safe and secure

• will require a single log on to all internal applications

(SSDN Statement of Requirements) are consistent with a progressive ideology,

social democratic values of equality of opportunity and a pluralistic approach to

partnership (Trowler, 1998) in that several agencies were involved in its

conception, and many, many more in its implementation. I will come back to this

issue and further develop later , but as far as official policy goes, Glow and
Curriculum for Excellence are interconnected – they are one and the same thing:

“Glow is not a separate development from CfE but a core element of support

driving it forward“ (Learning and Teaching Scotland a, 2010). However, Glow

does differ from CfE in many ways which will be explored in the course of this

paper, starting with their respective origins. Unlike the new curriculum policy

which borrowed structure and other elements from elsewhere, Glow does appear

to be a unique innovation in educational terms.

CfE, on the other hand, makes no particular claim to be progressive, but rather

transfomational (Learning and Teaching Scotland b 2009) in nature. Yet in

many ways it represents a continuation of past practice. In Priestley, M &

Humes, W, (2010) the authors argue that an ahistorical lack of reference in its

latter developments to antecedents, and a similar atheoretical lack of reference

to any model of curriculum design, potentially constrain the vision and

aspirations of the earlier developments in the policy and reduces freedom and

creativity of teachers. The authors compare its curricular areas to those in

England in 1904 and 1988. The inclusion of RME, technology, Gaelic and the

cross-curricular entitlements of health & wellbeing, literacy and numeracy, and

the loss of housewifery/manual represent the only significant curricular

changeover the course of a century ; six other traditional curricular areas retain

their identity at the heart of learning, namely English, Maths, Science, Social

Science, Modern Language, and Expressive Arts. The structure of the curriculum

also appears to be characterised by “curriculum homogeneity” (Priestley, 2002)

bearing a marked resemblence to similar curriculum frameworks in New Zealand,

England and Wales which are similarly composed of sequential levels, divided

into outcomes which are in turn subdivided into achievement objectives. While

there is much more to be said in about curriculum development in the context of

globalisation, and this will be considered later in this essay, this particular
example indicates a fairly conservative approach to policy borrowing since the

trend seems to be operating within English –speaking countries only. There

seems to be a tendency within English –speaking, colonial and former-colonial

nation-states to seek reaffirmament from each other, possibly due to a linguistic

insecurity, which may be operating as a barrier to looking for similar

comparative information elswhere. This is purely speculative, and further

research would be necessary to substantiate any definitive claims in this regard.

It should be noted, however, that because of this, comparisons in the area of

policy may be consequently limited in their scope.

Drivers for Change (and policy origins)

The problem setting moment, (Trowler, 1998), the intial spark that started the

Glow fire would therefore be the need to develop the necessary technological

skills in the current generation of learners; an initiative which could be could be

construed as a process of controlled empowerment. . Consistent with Trowler

(1998) this need was identified and acted upon by Government, and involved a

multi agency approach, including both educational and technological expertise.

Glow has its origins in the National Grid for Learning Scotland (NGfL Scotland),

which started in 1998 (SSDN Statement of Requirements). The National Grid for

Learning was an initiative designed to ensure that the educational benefits of ICT

are available to all sectors of education and beyond and was underpinned by the

three components of infrastructure, training and content. (Scottish Executive a,

2000). There is obvious divergence in the evolution of one single policy within

two countries here: the NGfL in England having been closed down in 2006,

seems to have evolved in a refractive way to become a separate collection of

regional National Education Networks (NEN) (see fig 1) which do not appear to

be interconnected. Glow apparently belongs to the NEN, but there are no obvious
signposts or indicators to it either on the National Glow site, or after log in. The

NGfL Scotland’s evolution into what is now GLOW seems to have taken a more

innovative and coherent course in that unlike the fragmented National Education

Network, it has provided a shared platform for participation from every local

authority in the country.

Fig 1(The National Education Network)

Since the initial launch of the NGfL Scotland there has been a proliferation of

technological devices appropriate to the classroom (clickers; netbooks; handheld

devices such as Nintendo DS; interactive white boards [IWB], desktop computers

to name but a few) and the simultaneous lowering costs of these instruments

and more has lead to a general increase in available technological hardware

which can be used in schools. Although the NGfL Scotland development was

given a fairly short expansion time, (having being instigated by the Government

in 1998), it was thought that it brought about a penetration of hardware in

schools which sufficiently enhanced the baseline provision of ICT in Scotland’s

schools. (SSDN Statement of Requirements). A further injection of funding for

ICT training for teachers form ther New Opportunities Fund (NOF), contributed to

the perceived readiness within the educational establishment for moving on to

the next stage in technological advancement in schools. (SSDN Statement of

Requirements) The initial developments in Glow date from 2002 , so the scope

for development of the NGfL and its subsequent influence on the future policy

such as Glow, although not insignificant, was limited in terms of time allowed.

The NGfL Scotland served as Glow’s policy trailblazer.

Globalisation as a driver for change

In contrast to their disparate beginnings, the policies of Glow and CfE have

shared roots in globalisation: Curriculum for Excellence itself has many

indicators which point towards increasing globalisation within the context of

education as a driver for policy change. Levin, (in Priestley, 2002), identified six

separate but interlinked themes common to school systems in many countries:

1. The tendency for educational change to be framed in economic terms, for

example to development of human resources

2. Increasing criticism of education and training: described elsewhere as the

discourses of derision (Ball, 1990)

3. The tendency to demand improvements without a concurrent increase in

resources

4. The promotion of educational change through changes in governance

5. A marketization of education

6. An increased emphasis on standards, accountability and testing.

These tendencies, as played out across different nation-states, support the

globalised policy discourses of “travelling policy” as identified in Lingard and

Ozga (2007) and they go beyond the level of nation to occupy the “global

education policy field” ( Lingard, et al 2005 in Lingard and Ozga, 2007). They
support the common agendas across many nation states highlighted in

Lingard, B & Ozga, J( 2007) such as “the reshaping of educational purposes to

develop human captial for the information age and for national economic

competitiveness.” While some, but not all of these tendencies can be

identified within CfE (3 for example: the Scottish Government allocated extra

CPD days in session 2009-10 to help facilitate policy implementation), it is fair

to say that the educational purposes of CfE (successful learners; confident

individuals; effective contributors and responsible citizens: Learning and

Teaching Scotlanda 2009) are grounded firmly in the ideal of an economically

viable, “fit for purpose” in an information age, educated individual, who, it is

argued by Holligan and Humes (Glasgow Herald, 2009) will serve the

interests of the business sector rather than any broader conception of the

public good. This is an area where the linkage between the two policies

becomes more transparent.

Glow as a policy has an obvious and direct contribution to make to the

development of the skills these young people will need as operators in the

information age envisioned above, but one which is almost entirely

dependent on the disposition and ability of teachers to mediate that policy to

the young people for whom it is intended. It is on the issue of policy

mediation, implementation and management I would now like to focus.

Implementation of Glow

As has been previously stated, Glow is a world-first: an innovative, process

policy, which only comes into existence if teachers implement and enact upon

it, and mediate it for their learners; unlike CfE which will exist in the tangible
form of the curricular area policy folders as distributed by Learning and

Teaching Scotland (even if no enactment is made upon it!).

Many factors have influenced the implementation of Glow, and it might now

be timely to consider the practical scope and implications of it as a national,

computerised linked – up system before going on to analyse these in more

detail. The projected numbers involved are impressive: all 32 local

authorities; 3000 schools; 53 000 teachers; 800 000 learners; teacher

education institutions and their students; other appropriate agencies such as

the British Council, SQA; (SSDN statement of requirements) etc. In the future

it is envisaged that parents will also be invited to join. Each individual as

listed above is to be issued with their own log in and with then be linked in a

nation-wide virtual community where work and information can be shared.

Given the nature of this policy, its dimensions, the numbers involved, the

geography of Scotland and the change it could potentially effect, it would be

unrealistic to expect the implementation of Glow to be trouble- free.

The processes of management and implementation of Glow were based on a

top-down, cascade model, comparable to that described in Trowler (1998, ch

4), although it could also be identified with Schon’s proliferation of centres

model (Kelly, 2004) since local management and leadership at authority level

in every area of Scotland was a key feature of the process. The policy career

of Glow would follow a similar path to that based on Saunders (1986) and

Reynolds and Saunders (1987) in Trowler (1998); moving from the national

centre (having been contested and negotiated at LTS by initiators,

stakeholders, Government officials, etc) to regional centres (the local

authorities), to local centres ( schools), to the classroom. Implementation of

the policy occurs differently at all these stages and is dependent on of

teachers and educational leaders as key agents of change involved at each

one; how they engage with and enact upon it. LTS appointed a Glow team:

leaders and practitioners who could operationalise Glow through leadership,

training and support for local authorities. Leadership overtly sought to create

and sustain commitment to Glow (Trowler, 1998) through an extensive

programme of policy advocacy; local authorities were encouraged to “sign –

up” to Glow; each local authority appointed a number of Glow mentors, as

lead- agents for the policy. Leadership therefore was devolved via the Glow

mentors, who were offered training and support from the national GLOW

team. A pluralistic approach was encouraged at this stage with regard to how

the policy was enacted: local authorities decided how best to implement the

policy in their schools, for example, some authorities identified a small

number of pilot schools to lead implementation; some, (like the authority I

work for) adopted a gradual, phase-in of schools, whereby log in details were

issued to small numbers of schools at intervals until all staff could participate.

Equally, a blanket distribution of log ins to all staff from the outset could have

been adopted as a method of implementation, but there is no available

information to confirm this method of roll out may indeed have been

deployed. Conversely, of course, there were some authorities who contested

the policy rigorously at this stage through resistance to the sign-up invitation,

slowing down the process of implementation, however all 32 authorities are

now signed up.

The policy refraction on the development pathway of Glow was therefore

complex, supporting the idea of it being an evolutionary, organic policy

process. Perhaps as has been stated previously, the greatest degree of

influence on the implementation process is arguably classroom teachers, as

they hold the capacity to operationalise the policy values (Bell & Stevenson,
2006) in its intended environment, and it is in the classroom where teachers,

with varying levels of enthusiasm, skill and interest, attempt to mediate the

policy that perhaps this policy has been contested to the greatest extent.

Interestingly, Glow seems to conform well to what Merton, in Brain et al,

(2006) suggest is the means by which teachers may mediate a policy and a

form of practice by which it may be achieved. In this analogy, CfE would

represent the goals of the policy – the purposes that apply to all involved. In

this regard, the partnership between Glow and CfE might be construed as

working well: one providing the vehicle for delivery of the other. There is also

consistency however with his assertion that even when the goals are

accepted, there is wide variation in the willingness to use the means, as

illustrated by reluctance at authority or individual level to engage.

Reid, (Brain, K; Reid,I; Boyes, L C, 2006) based a typology of stances adopted

by teachers in relation to policy implementation on ideas developed by

Merton, and it would be useful to consider these adaptive stances in relation

to Glow. They are:

Conformist; (accepting of both goals and implementation).

Ritualist; (rejects goals and accepts implementation).

Innovative; ( accepting of goals and rejectsand substitues implementation).

Transformative; (rejects and substitues both goals and implementation).

Retreatist; (rejects both goals and implementation)

(Kennedy, A. Adapted from Brain et al. (2006); Reid (1978); and Merton (1957) ,

2010)
Although there is great encouragement to integrate Glow into learning and

teaching experiences, teachers in their classrooms are free to accept or reject it

depending on many factors: their access to hardware; their capacity and

enthusiasm to use ICT, and perhaps most importantly, their evaluation of its

usefulness to their practice. As well as teacher disposition, there are other structural

and cultural characteristics which will influence a teacher’s motivation to use ICT.

Tondeur et al (2009) in Wallace, 2010, identified that educational change was a

complex process that is influenced by a number of factors including:

 A teacher’s individual beliefs concerning the purpose of ICT

 A teacher’s skills and knowledge of ICT

 The vision of the school management concerning ICT

 Resources made available to support ICT use.

Recent research (Wallace, 2010) suggests that many teachers have adopted the

retreatist stance with regard to Glow. Wallace (2010) identifies a correlation

between contructivist teacher beliefs and use of technology for teaching and

learning purposes. This suggests a related improved engagement with the policy

on the part of constructivist-minded teachers. However, as far as policy

implementation at whole school level goes, she claims the majority of teachers

do not feel that their school has a clear sense of direction for how GLOW could

be used to enhance student learning, and states that at present uncertainty

exists amongst all teachers as to its purpose. There is also the danger that some

teachers (and leaders) may engage with the policy for administrative purposes

only: tracking and monitoring learner progress, for example, subscribing to a

more managerialist agenda of accountability, and many may not engage at all.

Of course many teachers have successfully engaged with Glow and are using it

to enhance teaching and learning in their settings (Learning and Teaching

Scotland d, 2009), but there is a question to be answered in how to activate the

non-technologically conversant teacher voice, if most of the focus for discussion

of Glow is on-line. There is a danger of those who do engage enthusiastically with

the policy being over-represented in discussions around it, on account of their

attitude to, and comptence with ICT. If social media provide the fora for the

debate, those who do not use these tools can become excluded from it. Conlon,

(2008) suggests this creates an echo-chamber effect, resonating only the

positive experiences of adopters among themselves.

Impact of Glow

There is as yet, little research on the impact of Glow in schools, although there

are encouraging signs that this may improve with the emerging research by

Wallace (2010) and other emerging technology-pedagogy focussed research

projects like for example Edonis (Noble, 2008). In addition, Richards, (2008)

carried out a small classroom-based anaylsis of pupil performance in standard

grade biology using Glow and found that attainment improved with regular use

of Glow. Richards does however qualify her findings against the scale of the

finances of the project and the paucity of research into the impact of ICT

generally.

Further to this, more recently in her blog, Richards compares the policy to the

Emperor’s New Clothes (Richards, 2010), claiming responses to her opinion

piece in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland, (TESS) substantiate her

hypothesis that in spite of the positive gains she found in her own classroom,

there is little use of GLOW to enhance learning and teaching in any meaningful

sustained way. She also raises criticisms of Glow’s reliability and functionality;

both of which are crucial to its implementation. A further criticism she makes

which has also been sporadically exercising the media, is the issue of
accountability in justifying the considerable amount of public funds involved, and

this issue is also explored in Conlon (2008).

A further criticism Conlon (2008) makes is that the discourse surrounding Glow is

focused exclusively on the benefits to be derived from it; it has been one-sided in

nature and fails to take account of the opportunity costs involved. This one-

sidedness he attributes to the fact that the stakes have been raised so high

around Glow that talk of risks and threats become unmentionable. He claims the

missing voice in the discourse is that of the teacher, a view substantiated in

Richards (2010) and he sees Glow as a strongly managerialist policy. His

interpretation of it focuses mainly on its administrative functions which he sees

as harnessing data, for the purposes of accountability and standardisation across

schools. In this way, Glow could be seen as a policy by numbers (Lingard and

Ozga, 2007), the data stored and gathered on it constituting a new form of

technology of governance. However this view fails in any way to take into

account other pedagogical aspects of Glow, notably its potential for collaboration

and such as the collaborative learning opportunities it offers. Glow encourages

multiple versions of collaboration; at one to one or class to class level, and the

potential learning opportunities within this one aspect are significant. Conlon’s

view of collaboration in the classroom appears to be limited to groups of pupils

either clustered round computer terminals, or paradoxically, working individually.

The more expanded view of learning being planned and executed collaboratively

off line, then shared in Glow with a wider audience is missing in this

interpretation.

Of course, it is difficult to anticipate adjustments in policy which may have

impact on future development, particularly when technology is core to the policy

itself, on account of its rapidly changing nature. It is fair to say however, that
since leadership change at the end of 2009 there has been a more consultative

ethos to Glow, as characterised by surveys and invitations to participate in

ongoing debates such #Glowbetter (Glow National site 2010), giving teacher

voice a chance to be heard. Crowdsourcing, the practice of inviting mass

participation in debate via web 2.0 tools such as twitter or facebook has been

identified as a favoured modus operandi of Andrew Brown (Glasgow Herald,

2010) the new head of Glow, which will, if carried through have an impact on the

consultative evolution of the policy.

Future impact of Glow will be difficult to predict, but its potential, if the discourse

around it is to be believed, is significant. Research on technology in learning

more generally suggests that it does provide small, but significant increases in

learning when implemented with fidelity and accompanied by appropriate

pedagogical shifts (Lemke, Coughlin, & Reifneider, 2009), reinforcing the notion

of a sense of purpose being key to Glow’s success, as identified by Wallace,

(2010).

In conclusion, one fact however remains undeniably central to this policy; in

spite of the not inconsiderable amount of funding and extensive degree of policy

advocacy that has occurred around Glow, its impact will be minimal without the

willingness of teachers to engage with it.

A very simple, clear and incisive observation was made of Glow recently by a

colleague in my personal learning network on twitter:" Glow is only as good as

you want to make it" #glowbetter #glowstories mclaughlin_aj (Friday 16th April

via twitter). The same could be said of any attempt to analyse, understand and

implement any policy initiative in our current times.

Bibliography
(n.d.). Retrieved from The National Education Network: http://www.nen.gov.uk/

Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Educational Policy: Process, Themes and Impact.
London and New York: Routeledge.

Brain, K; Reid,I; Boyes, L C. (2006). Teachers as mediators between educational

policy and practice. Educational Studies , 32 (4), 411-423.

Conlon, T. (2008). The dark side of GLOW: balancing the discourse. Scottish
Educational Review , 40 (2), 64-75.

Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York & London:
Teachers' College Press.

The Glasgow Herald, 10th February 2010. Retrieved April 17th from
http://www.heraldscotland.com/life-style/real-lives/how-glow-may-shine-once-
more-1.1008597

Holligan, C & Humes, W. (17th September 2009). The Hidden Politics of

Curriculum for Excellence. Retrieved April 17th 2010 from
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/the-hidden-politics-
of-the-curriculum-for-excellence-1.920583

Kelly, A. (2004). The Curriculum: theory and practice. London: Sage.

Kennedy, A. Adapted from Brain et al. (2006); Reid (1978); and Merton (1957). .
(2010, Feb 20). 2.4.1.4.1 Policy Development. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from
Learnonline@Strathclyde:
http://learnonline.strath.ac.uk/webct/urw/lc5116001.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.doweb
ct?
JSESSIONIDVISTA=5Q57LLsZB6LH3HfVmVmnGhYM3l18mDL0p5SynstX2nSZTQZL
zBrp!1381234635!learnonline.strath.ac.uk!80!443

Learing and Teaching Scotland a. (2007, June). Building the Curriculum 3 .

Retrieved April 2010

Learning and Teaching Scotlandb (2009). Curriculum for Excellence. Retrieved

2010, from Learning and Teaching Scotland:
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/background/index.asp

Learning and Teaching Scotland c. (2007). Glow National Site. Retrieved April
2010
https://portal.glowscotland.org.uk/establishments/nationalsite/documents/glowbe
tter.aspx

Learning and Teaching Scotland d. (2009, September). Working collaboratively

using Glow. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from Curriculum for Excellence Goood
Practice:
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/sharingpractice/m/modernlanguagesgoodpractice/d
evelopinglearningskills.asp?strReferringChannel=curriculumforexcellence
LLemke, C., Coughlin, E., & Reifneider, D. (2009). Technology in Schools What
the research says: an update. Culver City CA: Commissioned by CISCO.

Lingard, B & Ozga, J. (2007). Education Policy and Politics. In B. &. Lingard, The
RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Education Policy and Politics (pp. 65-82). Abingdon:
Routledge.

Noble, D. (2008, July). Retrieved April 16, 2010, from The Edonis Project:
http://edonis.ning.com/

Priestley, M & Humes, W. (2010). The development of Scotland's Curriculum for

Excellence: amnesia or déja vu? Oxford Review of Education. First published on
26th February 2010 (iFirst)

Priestley, M. (2002). Global discourses and national reconstruction; the impact of

globalization on curriculum policy. Curriculum Journal , 121-138.

Richards, J. (2010, April 5th). The Emperor's new clothes. Retrieved April 16th,
2010, from Mimanifesto: http://mimanifesto.wordpress.com/

Richards, J. (2008). Will the Lights Stay On? Glow and Embedding ICT into
Secondary School Curriculum Subjects: A Quantitative and Qualitative Design-
based Classroom Study. Retrieved April 16th, 2010, from GTCs:
http://www.gtcs.org.uk/Research_/TeacherResearcherProgramme/TeacherResear
cherReports/will_the_lights_stay_on.aspx

The Scottish Executivea. (2000, December). NGfL Scotland Summary of Progress

report December 2000. Retrieved April 17th, 2010, from
http://openscotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/158365/0042900.pdf

The Scottish Executiveb. (2003). The Scottish Government. Retrieved April 16th,
2010, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2003/01/3009

Scottish Government (2008) Building the Curriculum 3 Available from

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/buildingthecurriculum/guid
ance/btc3/index.asp First Accessed June 2008

Statement of Requirements : SSDN ( 2002) (unpublished)

Trowler, P. (1998). Education Policy. Eastbourne: The Gildredge Press.

Wallace, V. (2010, 04 15). Investigating teacher’s perceptions of the purpose of

GLOW and the implications for practice. Retrieved 04 16, 2010, from Wallace
glow research blog: http://wallaceglow.wordpress.com/end-of-year-1-research-
project/final-end-of-year-1-report-p6535383-2/

Acknowledgement

Grateful thanks to John Connell, i8iuCisco, for sharing the paper SSDN Statement
of Requirements