In the ‘go!’ schools, senior leaders had established a culture within the school where teachers were open to new learning. This set the conditions for implementing the DT curriculum content. Senior leaders understood their role in implementation and making sure they supported the requirements to implement the DT curriculum content. Senior leaders identified key curriculum leaders for the DT curriculum content. They did not leave understanding and implementation plans of the DT curriculum content just to curriculum leaders. (In this report a curriculum leader could also be a curriculum champion, but a curriculum champion is not necessarily a curriculum leader.) They made sure internal and external support was provided for teachers. Resourcing of devices in these schools were aligned to their school’s context and needs. Leaders also made sure to keep parents informed about the DT curriculum content and how they planned to implement it. (In this report, leaders include senior and curriculum leaders.)
These leaders deliberately fostered school-wide cultures of openness to learning and innovation. In some schools, senior leaders had been engaging in significant curriculum review and were already encouraging teachers to think ‘outside the box’ for teaching and learning practices.
Before focusing on the DT curriculum content, we have had an almost two-year focus on developing innovative teaching and learning practices and promoting a growth mindset amongst teachers.
Senior leaders encouraged teachers to take risks and trial new approaches for learning. Teachers were supported to become more comfortable learning from, and alongside, students and allowing students to lead more of their own learning.
Innovative practices in these schools had been sustained over time through the active modelling and involvement of leaders; effective identification and support for those teachers leading this practice; and flexible, relevant and responsive professional development. These schools had experience in managing change, a depth of leadership capability across the school, and high levels of staff buy-in to exploring new teaching practice.
For some teachers, the change built on the development of digital literacy and fluency amongst staff and increasing effective use of digital technologies in teaching and learning.
In the ‘on your marks’ schools, there was no evidence of a growth mindset to support implementation, let alone a clear progression to delivery of the DT curriculum content.
These leaders understood:
We are clear as leaders, and with our staff, that the DT curriculum content needs to be taught and learnt.
Senior leaders deliberately built their knowledge of the DT curriculum content through participation in launch events, attendance at conferences, conversations with external PD providers or in discussion with curriculum leaders.
Leadership teams in these schools had spent time together to build a shared understanding of the DT curriculum content and develop the implementation plans going forward. They had followed this up by providing meaningful opportunities for middle leaders to learn about the DT curriculum content.
We asked our professional development provider for digital fluency to deliver PD to our senior leadership team on the new curriculum content. As a senior leadership team, we have been working with our teaching team leaders to build their confidence and capability to lead this in their teams.
In the ‘on your marks’ schools, curriculum leaders were in the very early stages of unpacking the DT curriculum content and had not yet shared this with other leaders.
Senior leaders were developing school-wide implementation plans to make sure the DT curriculum content was implemented by 2020. They had strategic and annual plans and goals that reflected the priority for DT curriculum content implementation. This planning covered each of the year groups in their school.
This planning linked the DT curriculum content to other school-wide priorities and goals and to consideration of appropriate resourcing, professional development and curriculum leadership needs.
We have created a charter goal for implementing the digital technologies curriculum content and teachers have included a related goal in their appraisal and teacher inquiries.
Leaders in some of these schools made clear links to the Technology learning area whereas other schools were not explicit in their recognition of the place of DT curriculum content in the learning area overall.
One ‘get set’ secondary school deliberately created a new subset in their Technology Curriculum with a compulsory programme for all Year 9 students, as well as integration across other learning areas in Years 9 and 10. Teachers’ notes emphasise the strands of the Technology learning area.
In one ‘go!’ school, leaders planned to embed Year 8 use of Micro:Bits in other technology areas to address the progress outcomes of the DT curriculum area. They have worked with staff to help them understand that this area is a ‘new part of the curriculum’ and how the Technology strands still relate to it.
These schools had undertaken an audit of existing programmes to identify where the progress outcomes of the DT curriculum content were already being met, and where there was potential to integrate other aspects of the DT curriculum content. This then helped leaders prioritise and plan implementation. The audit helped to reassure teachers where they were already implementing some of the DT curriculum content, to demystify key concepts such as computational thinking, and to build teachers’ understandings of what progression looks like over time. Teacher anxiety lessened with the knowledge that there was a planned approach to the curriculum’s introduction. One school undertook this audit using a curriculum-mapping tool.
Leaders in these schools had made key decisions about starting points for implementation of the curriculum content and had made sure these were introduced school-wide, or in an integrated way across learning areas. One of these schools focused on the integration of the Computational thinking area at all levels across the school. In the other school this involved consolidating existing coding programmes in Years 1 to 6 and establishing a core Year 7 programme as the foundation for delivery of the content across learning areas in Years 8 to 10.
The ‘get set’ schools were trialling a variety of implementation approaches and programmes in specialist or ‘early adopter’ classes. Leaders in these schools were beginning to map the DT curriculum content areas and progress outcomes.
The ‘on your marks’ schools seemed to be implementing aspects of the DT curriculum content for small groups of students (i.e. in lunchtime coding clubs, gifted and talented groups, or in ‘early adopter’ classes). However, leaders had not yet formally identified this implementation as DT curriculum content or linked it to their school implementation plan. There was no planned approach to mapping the curriculum, and no consideration given to how to provide access to the DT curriculum content for all students.
Senior leaders in these schools gave curriculum leaders responsibility and appropriately resourced them to undertake related planning, professional development, staff mentoring and to lead whole-school professional learning in the DT curriculum content. In the larger schools, the curriculum leaders focused on building implementation teams or fostering DT curriculum content champions (who were not curriculum leaders) in teaching teams across the school.
We have released our curriculum specialist to run mini professional development sessions with a team of three people from each learning area. Each team will include the head of learning area, a leader of junior learning and a third teacher with an interest in digital technology. The hope is to foster curriculum champions starting with those teachers with a natural interest.
In ‘go!’ schools, the curriculum leaders organised the information received by the school about resources, programmes and services related to the DT curriculum content. They sorted it into what was most relevant to the school’s planned approach and shared that information with teachers. Senior leaders incentivised experienced curriculum leaders, providing them with professional challenges, supporting them to pursue individualised professional development and explore industry secondments and sabbaticals, and involving them in leading and sharing effective practice in networks both within and beyond the school.
Leaders were mindful of providing a variety of flexible and responsive opportunities for teachers to learn about the curriculum content and how to implement it. This included taking time to systematically unpack the content and vocabulary of the curriculum with teachers so there were clear and shared understandings. Other effective approaches included:
Senior leaders in these schools had communicated clear expectations for teachers to engage in professional development, and actively participated alongside teachers. Leaders were developing systems for sharing examples of effective planning and practice, and curating relevant implementation resources.
In the ‘go!’ schools, professional development was focused on the DT curriculum content, while the ‘get set’ schools had a focus on building teachers’ digital fluency or understanding of e-learning alongside their knowledge of the new curriculum content. The following is a summary of the ‘get set’ and ‘go!’ support accessed.
In ‘get set’ and ‘go!’ schools, accessing expert, customised professional development was critical to the positive progress made.
All of these schools accessed centrally-funded PD from the Ministry to work with an external professional development provider. At the time of this evaluation, two have already started working with their provider and another two were about to start (including one through a Kāhui Ako).
Without the support of our PD provider we would have floundered. They have helped us to know where to start and how to proceed.
Through this PD, schools have unpacked the DT curriculum content for the whole staff, developed implementation plans, and provided targeted professional development for groups and individuals.
All our teachers have really valued having hands-on practical demonstrations of how to teach aspects of the DT curriculum content. It has made it easier for them to try things out in their classes.
We had a provider come and model teaching the DT curriculum content in a number of classes. While that was helpful in giving ideas, it also raised some teachers’ anxiety about being able to do it on their own. The focus of our next PD contract will be on working alongside teachers in an ongoing way to build their confidence.
Schools found providers’ advice about useful resources, applications, programmes and devices invaluable. Three schools relied on the support of providers to formally document their curriculum guidelines and expectations for implementation of the DT curriculum content.
In addition, two schools were supporting individual teachers to undertake self-paced online learning and making increased use of the Ministry-funded Kia Takatū-ā-Matihiko and Technology Online resources. One school was accessing specialist training for use of licensed products it considered beneficial to its planned approach to teaching the DT curriculum content (i.e. Minecraft: Education Edition and Code Club).
These leaders were yet to consider the professional development needs of staff or engage them in PD related to the delivery of the DT curriculum content. The schools had not yet introduced the DT curriculum content to the wider staff. Individual teachers and early adopters in these schools were accessing relevant PD, but senior leaders had limited engagement in PD associated with implementing the DT curriculum content.
Leaders in these schools had different, but well-considered, approaches to making decisions about purchasing equipment and devices to support the DT curriculum content in their schools. One, a large composite school, had significant experience integrating the use of digital technologies into teaching and learning. As a part of this move, they developed a robust relationship with their infrastructure provider. Leaders made sure technology support was led by someone with an understanding of the educational uses and purposes for digital technology.
We purposely appointed a teacher to lead our technical support. We wanted to ensure technical support was aligned with pedagogical support.
(Head of information technology)
Through trial and error, this school developed understandings about which devices and operating systems supported learning at different levels. They resisted loyalty to any one brand in favour of a focus on alignment with purposes and use in classrooms. Decisions about resourcing were well researched, discussed and tied to curriculum planning.
It is nerve-wracking making decisions about which resources to purchase. These are expensive decisions and there is such a lot to consider in terms of how well they will be used, how they will interact with school infrastructure, and whether they will continue to be serviced and supported.
(Senior Leadership Team member)
For example, the school had recently purchased Micro:bits for all Year 7 learners (as well as a class set for use in Years 8 to 10). They intend all students in the middle school will have these devices to support implementation of the DT curriculum content across multiple learning areas up to Year 10. Micro:bits, Sphero robots, and Bee-Bots are all examples of proprietary products which can be used to provide early coding experiences.
The small ‘go!’ primary school had different resourcing solutions for implementing the DT curriculum content. This school had limited resources for purchasing new devices. Leaders decided to maximise the use of the devices they did have, and made the decision to focus on the use of Sphero robots in their middle and senior classes and Bee-Bots in their junior classes. Teachers were working to integrate the DT curriculum content meaningfully across learning areas with these devices. This school also used unplugged activities as a low-cost option.
‘Get set’ schools were still working on the core DT curriculum content, which would then allow leaders to be more strategic in their decisions about device resourcing. These schools were more likely to be experimenting with different devices and equipment, often in response to teacher interest.
The ‘on your marks’ schools were more focused on devices supporting student and teacher digital literacy and fluency and were yet to consider implications for the specific progress outcomes of the DT curriculum content.
Leaders in ‘go!’ schools made sure parents were informed about the DT curriculum content and the school’s plans for implementation. For one of these schools, the focus on digital devices and DT curriculum content was such a central part of the school curriculum that it ran annual evenings with parents. These evenings helped parents understand how digital technologies were used to enhance teaching and learning, and how the school was intending to teach DT curriculum content at all levels of the school.
Leaders of ‘get set’ schools had consulted with their parent community about the integration of digital devices in teaching and learning but were in the early stages of informing them about the specific content and learning outcomes of the DT curriculum content.
Leaders in schools with secondary students were aware that some parents (and students) still had the perception that digital technology as a subject was limited to information management or business administration tasks and pathways, and there was a need to address this perception.
As yet, schools’ priority was on first implementing the DT curriculum content and they were not yet reporting to parents on children’s achievement in relation to the progress outcomes of the content.
|'on your mark'||'get set'||'go!'|
|Mindset and culture of school||
|Understanding of DT curriculum content||
|Implementation across school||
|Building curriculum leader and teacher capability||
|Resourcing of devices||
|Parents and Community||
Across the three stages, the extent to which teachers and students had engaged with the DT curriculum content reflected the extent of leadership support mechanisms in place. Teachers’ and students’ understanding of the DT curriculum content was variable. Teachers and students in ‘go!’ schools had greater understanding of the DT curriculum content compared to the other schools. These teachers integrated the content into a variety of learning areas. Teachers’ established growth mindset gave them at least the confidence to start to work with the DT curriculum content.
These teachers knew about the content, structure and progress outcomes of the DT curriculum content, and how this was different from using digital devices in the classroom. They were also actively participating in a variety of PD linked to DT curriculum content for the needs they had identified for themselves. Both schools had external PD and one consolidated this with internal PD.
Students in these two schools understood the vocabulary related to the two strands of the DT curriculum content. For example, students spoke of terms from Progress Outcome 2 for the computational thinking strand. These students spoke of learning about terms such as loops, algorithms, and the purpose of debugging.
In ‘get set’ schools, teachers were developing an understanding of the difference between using digital devices and the DT curriculum content. Some teachers in these schools knew about the content, structure and progress outcomes of the DT curriculum content. Along with their understanding, these teachers were also developing the knowledge, capability and confidence to implement the DT curriculum content.
Teachers were participating in a variety of PD aimed at supporting both digital fluency and the implementation of the DT curriculum content. One school offered teachers a selection of PD they could choose to attend according to their needs. This PD addressed digital fluency and aspects of the computational thinking strand. The school intended to increase their focus on the DT curriculum content for 2019.
The ‘get set’ schools had some pockets of students who understood the vocabulary of the DT curriculum content. These students were from classes focussed on DT curriculum content.
Teachers in these schools had not been introduced to the DT curriculum content and were unaware of its structure and progress outcomes. Individual teachers in these schools were potentially implementing aspects of the DT curriculum content, without realising how their work tied into the curriculum content. For example, many teachers already use SCRATCH, which introduces the rudiments of computational thinking and elementary coding. These teachers seemed to be digitally fluent and making use of digital devices to enhance learning.
Most students in these schools were not aware of the DT curriculum content vocabulary. Students who did experience aspects of the DT curriculum content belonged to coding clubs or their teacher had an interest in the DT curriculum content. There were limited opportunities for the students with an interest in the DT curriculum content to extend their learning in class.
Teachers integrating the DT curriculum content into other learning areas worked with their students to plan activities which followed students’ interests. This included links to geometry, physical education, science and social studies. For example, Year 1 and 2 students in one of these schools learnt about algorithmic thinking in physical education through an unplugged resource called Move it, move it. Students put together instructions (i.e. an algorithm) for their classmates to follow to music, such as forward three, turn left, spin.
Students in ‘go!’ schools experienced authentic DT curriculum content learning in inquiry topics. For example, one of the schools had students solving the problem related to the impacts of flooding on their community’s roading. They used digital technologies to arrive at their solution. Students worked together and re-designed the roads for their community. They tested the new layout using a Sphero (to act as cars) and Micro:bits (to act as traffic lights). The layout of this activity can be seen in the right-hand image.
Students had the ability to lead not only their own learning but share this learning with their classmates and teacher. This practice was not uncommon. One school had a student with a significant interest in working with computers lead a learning exercise with their class. This extended the teachers’ and students’ learning in the DT curriculum content.
Some year-groups of students belonging to ‘go!’ schools were able to speak about their learning progress with the DT curriculum content. Students were confident describing how their DT curriculum content knowledge has improved since last year:
Last year we were working with coding on applications, but now we are working with coding robots to move in real life. It gets harder, but the more you learn, the easier it becomes.
It is important to note ‘go!’ schools were still on a journey towards implementation across their school. In one of these schools, students across the year-groups had different levels of exposure to DT curriculum content. For example, while students in Year 7 could speak about the DT curriculum content, the students who were in Year 7 the previous year had very limited DT knowledge. These students’ understanding was more aligned to information technology, even referring to the class as a “typing” class. This was clearly not the DT curriculum content.
The curriculum leader in the secondary school worked with teachers motivated to change their practice relating to the DT curriculum content. For example, the curriculum leader worked with a mathematics teacher to consider ways of connecting statistics and data collection to progress outcomes in the DT curriculum content.
Some students in these schools, mostly in specialist or early adopter DT classes, could speak about authentic learning opportunities in the context of the DT curriculum content. These schools were beginning to integrate the DT curriculum content into other learning areas outside of specialist DT classes. Students could speak about linking the DT curriculum content from specialist classes into other learning areas. For example, students themselves recognised the links between binary taught in their DT class and what was taught in mathematics.
Because teachers did not provide learning opportunities with the DT curriculum content, there were limited opportunities for students in these schools to link the DT curriculum content to other learning areas.
In the ‘go!’ schools, the majority of teachers had the capability, and certainly the confidence, to implement the DT curriculum content. Their growth mindset helped teachers be comfortable with uncertainty and accept ako, allowing capable students to lead the learning. One teacher reflected on their experience of a student leading their class’s learning:
One of the tasks required for students was to do a survey. I would never have thought of saying to do it on the survey maker on your Chromebook. But a student thought of it and made a survey for other students to follow. And once he did it the whole group followed suit. So, he led the other students’ learning. Once he led the students through the survey I took the next step and asked ‘okay, now what can we do with this information?’
Teachers in ‘get set’ and ‘go!’ schools actively sought out and took advantage of support that leaders offered. Leaders provided PD curated to teachers’ individual needs.
In ‘get set’ schools, the established growth mindset meant teachers were open to learning about the DT curriculum content and different ways to implement it. Leaders at one of the schools made sure they continued to foster the growth mindset by encouraging teachers to trial integrating the curriculum. This helped to overcome the reluctance of teachers to implement the DT curriculum content.
‘On your marks’ schools did not foster a growth mindset, and certainly not in the context of the DT curriculum content, and teachers did not seek out support for DT curriculum content implementation from leaders.
|‘on your marks||‘get set’||‘go!’|
|Understanding of DT curriculum content||
|Integration with other learning areas||
|‘on your marks’||‘get set’||‘go!’|
|Vocabulary of students||
|Reach of curriculum content||
|Integration with other learning areas||
|Authentic learning experiences||
|Collaboration & extending learning||
The connections included PD providers, across-school networks including Community of Learning | Kāhui Ako, and industry partnerships. More than one leader in one of the ‘go!’ schools brokered with external connections to support implementation.
Leaders and teachers in ‘go!’ schools worked closely with their PD provider to tailor to their school’s context and needs. One of the ‘go!’ schools co-constructed their professional development with their provider. The PD provider looked at topics that teachers intended to cover in class, and how these could be linked to DT curriculum content. For example, the provider helped teachers make links between Computational thinking (using SCRATCH Junior), and how it could be used in their upcoming unit on the ANZACs.
The ‘get set’ schools were developing a relationship with their PD providers. The support provided was increasingly customised to teachers’ needs for implementing DT curriculum content. Some PD focused on developing the teachers’ understanding of digital fluency or e-learning, seen by the schools as a precursor to DT curriculum content knowledge.
The ‘on your marks’ schools’ professional development focused on digital fluency, and not the DT curriculum content. These schools targeted digital fluency, as leaders wanted to build teachers’ fluency before introducing the DT curriculum content. They intended to shift to DT curriculum content PD in the future.
One of the ‘go!’ schools had several teachers who actively participated in a variety of networks, ranging from local to international, to help support implementation of the DT curriculum content. The local network this school belonged to, their Community of Learning | Kāhui Ako, shared understanding on the importance of the DT curriculum content, and supported each other:
In our Kāhui Ako we have recognised the need for our schools to bring everyone onto the same page with the DT curriculum content. Across our schools the staff are at various levels of knowledge about the DT curriculum content. We have been quite strategic as a Kāhui Ako to have a group of in-school leaders that are focusing on the DT curriculum content.
The next step is to map the curriculum together, so we don’t re-invent the wheel. We are supporting each other across the schools to make sure we implement it effectively.
(Professional Learning Lead)
The national network included a teacher who was a facilitator with Code Club. In this role the teacher supported schools across New Zealand with professional development in the DT curriculum content, building teacher knowledge about the DT curriculum content and coding capability. Another school leader, involved in an international network, learnt about how schools in other countries had implemented their country’s DT curriculum. This helped inform their school’s progress. As part of this network, the leader developed resources for Minecraft: Education Edition that were related to the NZC.
One of the ‘get set’ schools had their DT leader engage in a small number of professional networks with a particular focus on science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics (STEAM) in their Kāhui Ako, which supported a new project-based unit. The DT leader also collaborated with other teachers in the Digital Technologies Teachers Aotearoa (DTTA) network20, and indeed took a leadership role in that group.
The ‘on your marks’ schools were involved in networks, but these did not support the implementation of the DT curriculum content.
One of the ‘go!’ schools worked with industry partners, such as the video game industry, to show teachers, parents and students how the DT curriculum content was important in the world beyond school. These examples gave teachers, parents and students awareness of real-world applications of the DT curriculum content.
In exchange, these partnerships provided PD opportunities from experts to the school.
|‘on your marks’||‘get set’||‘go!’|
|Professional Development provider||
|Teacher role in network||
From our case studies, there is a clear set of conditions that play an important part in the effective preparation for and implementation of the DT curriculum content. Depending on what is present in the schools, components of each condition can act as enablers or barriers in the journey to implement the DT curriculum content. Contextual factors, such as school location, did not appear to act as enablers or barriers across the three stages of readiness, based on the schools visited.
Leaders do not see the implementation of DT curriculum content as a priority
Leaders do not engage with the DT curriculum content
Leaders do not have a clear understanding of DT curriculum content
Leaders do not have a planned approach to DT curriculum content implementation
Facilitated by leadership, teachers are willing to learn about, and learn from mistakes with, DT curriculum content
Teachers are open to learn with, or from, their students about the DT curriculum content
Absence of a growth mindset means teachers may not be willing to ‘have a go’ with implementing the DT curriculum content
The school culture may not tolerate mistakes
DT curriculum content PD is prioritised, sometimes alongside curriculum review work
Internal and external DT curriculum content specialists are accessed for PD
PD is timely for leaders and teachers to implement the DT curriculum content
PD is tailored to school’s identified needs
PD for DT curriculum content is not a priority in school’s strategic plan
Time consuming PD application
Lack of availability of specialist providers
A lack of PD in school’s geographic area
PD not tailored to leader and teacher needs in DT curriculum content
No school champion or curriculum leaders to lead the DT curriculum content PD internally
Parents have concerns about the extended use of digital devices
Parents have been provided little, if any, information on what the DT curriculum content is about
Learning is perceived to be divorced from real-life applications
Some vocal parents are concerned with children being over-exposed to wi-fi signals
Barriers not assessed or mitigated
Infrastructure provider not fit for needs of the school
We came to the realisation that infrastructure should not drive what you to want to do. Rather, what you want to do should drive infrastructure.
Our findings highlight that leaders who are successfully journeying towards implementation are proactive; they know their school, where the strengths and gaps are, and they make sure they have what is needed to keep their curriculum development moving forward.
Schools are required to integrate the DT curriculum content into their local curricula from the start of 2020. The Ministry has provided a guide to introduce schools to the DT curriculum content and there are resources available online.
These case studies show that schools were implementing the DT curriculum content in different ways. The DT curriculum content was implemented in specific Digital Technology classes, integrated across different learning areas or, as in some cases, a mix of both approaches. This illustrates the importance of schools being able to implement the DT curriculum content to suit the context of their school and community.
ERO’s 2018 DT curriculum content survey showed many schools were slow to engage with the DT curriculum content. Leaders needed more guidance on what is expected of their school to be prepared for 2020. ERO found leaders and teachers needed ongoing and practical support from the Ministry on how the DT curriculum content should be integrated across learning areas. Potential barriers to accessing PD, such as time-consuming applications, and geographically-limited PD, need to be addressed. These findings were shared with the Ministry in December 2018 and since then the Ministry reports it has made changes to improve access to resources and PD.
Each of the schools in this study had worked on e-learning or digital fluency at some point. Most schools believed digital fluency sits as a pre-condition to confident DT curriculum content implementation and had built, or were continuing to build, digital fluency in leaders, teachers and students. Clarification on the differences, and interactions between, digital fluency and the DT curriculum content will help support implementation.
One school felt teachers needed to differentiate the curriculum for female students to make sure they stayed engaged in their DT curriculum content learning. For example, this school recognised female students were more engaged in creative subjects such as art, so they introduced coding into art.
The secondary school in this study also faced challenges attracting female students to the optional, specialised Year 10 digital technology class. It was also more difficult to attract the ‘academic’ students in Years 11 to 13 to senior digital technology classes. The female students considered DT curriculum content was about publishing and typing, rather than a core literacy that would be useful to them in a wide range of contexts.
Guidance for schools or exemplars for attracting and engaging female students would help schools with strategies to overcome this potential barrier. This is significant given that women in New Zealand are underrepresented in technology roles.
One of the schools in this study had a strong culture of engaging parents in decisions relating to the use of digital devices and, more recently, the DT curriculum content. The school and parents valued this engagement as they could raise any anxieties related to students working in digital learning areas. One of the anxieties was the concern some parents had about their children being over-exposed to wi-fi signals. While school leaders acknowledged this was a small group of parents, they had found it difficult to address this concern.
There would likely be other schools experiencing similar difficulties. At present there is no public health guidance from the Ministry, or other government agencies, on the effects of wi-fi. Providing such a resource would be useful for schools to reassure concerned parents.