The description in the following section is based on the extensive material from interview transcripts and documents. Firstly, the statements of the national experts are analyzed according to thematic categories (7.1.), secondly, the document analysis produced short summaries of the cantonal enactment strategies (7.2.). In Chap. 7.3. we describe the two case vignettes.
7.1. Analysis of the National Policy Design Process
In this section, we show the three main characteristics of the design process on the national level: Use of a working group to develop the new MIL policy, negotiation processes between cantons and the public and settling for a minimal consensus.
Installing a Working Group to Develop and Design the National Policy
The policy design process commenced in 2013 with the establishment of a working group tasked with devising a strategy for integrating MIL into the new curriculum (Arbeitsgruppe ICT und Medien, 2015). The experts involved in this working group emphasized the significance of engaging critical and contentious voices in the discourse. A primary goal of engaging these experts was to “guarantee that the space for digital education is constructed in a harmonious manner” (Expert 4). Despite this, highly specialized areas in the realm of digitalization necessitate collaboration with subject matter specialists. Examples include data protection, digital systems for schools and further education. Therefore, the working group and national stakeholders sought networking opportunities with experts throughout the policy design process. The experts referred to the emergence of a “new discipline” (Expert 1) that demands meticulous design, labeling and alignment with established school practices. Their rationale was that “anything new to schools should not appear as a disease, as the school’s immune system will activate otherwise” (Expert 1).
Negotiation Processes between Cantons and the Public
The process of policy design is shaped by the mechanisms of the decentralized system. According to the experts, a curriculum for MIL has been discussed in the cantons thoroughly even before the curriculum assumed form, but the national curriculum design called for a new and inclusive policy which would be compatible for all cantons. The experts report that they have been included in policy design in different stages of the process and for different reasons. Primarily, the focus of the national working group was set on media education which was by that time already taught in Swiss schools. According to the experts, the first draft of the MIL curriculum was rejected by some cantons and the discussion was also picked up by national media. The discussion in the working group was described as a protracted and very interest-led process, because it was known that not all cantons were willing to allocate time in the children’s weekly schedule to this new discipline. Also, the criticism that the curriculum contains too little computer science compared to media literacy was met by revising the curriculum content. The experts see the “joint and collaborative work” (Expert 4) of developing a national policy as more important than the result of the discussions. Especially because the field of MIL changes rapidly and the curriculum content may already be outdated the moment it comes into effect. As a result, a national strategy with a corresponding action plan was published to accompany the new curriculum for MIL.
Settling for a Minimal Consensus: The working group appears to have reached a minimal consensus on the MIL policy design and is hoping that cantonal authorities will take over the details. Some experts believe that “if there had been more experts involved, the outcome might have been different. However, there weren’t enough experts. There was too much politics and too little factual discussion” (Expert 1). The final two policy instruments, the strategy and action plan, reveal that there are no specific goals that would put pressure on cantons to meet certain standards or infrastructure requirements: “We don’t want to overwhelm or stab them in the back by imposing requirements” (Expert 3) or allow comparisons between cantons: “If you start comparing, we don’t want that – it’s first difficult and second you quickly create a bad atmosphere” (Expert 4). The experts argue that the design process aligns with the established practice of avoiding comparisons in other areas of the Swiss education system, such as student competency measurements. The current challenge is that there is no clear understanding of where the cantons stand in terms of school digitalization, infrastructure, teaching standards, or the use of teaching materials. Additionally, there are currently no binding guidelines that allow for the monitoring of student performance or teacher competencies. Further, the working group reached the conclusion not to coordinate teacher training or provide further specifications or examples regarding infrastructure requirements or equipment for schools. However, a national network to coordinate the development of teaching materials has been established, initiated by the experts. Therefore, we conclude that active and inclusive dialogue and stakeholder management is essential for reaching consensus at the national level. It is also apparent that the national actors in the working group avoided setting standards and establishing a monitoring for the implementation of the curriculum for MIL.
7.2. Portraits of Cantonal Enactment Strategies
In the following, the results of the qualitative document analyses are described. The portraits summarize how each sub-unit government has to some extent distinctive traditions and options to tackle to question of MIL policy design and enactment.
Canton 1 has established an ICT service provider to develop a joint electronical government strategy. This provider is responsible for the basic technical infrastructure of schools, while municipalities are responsible for network (wifi) components and end-user devices. Cantonal authorities provide support for municipalities developing pedagogical and technological concepts. Mandatory teacher training is organized. Teachers and school administrators are responsible to decide upon teaching materials and further teacher training. Specific support, such as a job description for ICT coordinators, is provided and comprehensively documented.
Canton 2 has partnered with the University of Teacher Education to assess the needs of elementary schools in MIL. Based on this assessment, support documents have been developed for school administrators and school leaders. The canton is funding and providing access to basic and further teacher training at the University of Teacher Education. Support materials are also provided concerning infrastructure. The canton has developed recommendations for municipalities and school administrations in collaboration with practitioners and other stakeholders.
Canton 3 developed a handout on MIL infrastructure for schools. Local school authorities developed their own school concepts for MIL, some with the help of private companies. The canton provided minimal guidance for support. The University of Teacher Education sets strict specifications for teaching material use and further training of teachers. It serves as a consulting and contact point for school principals and teachers.
Canton 4 has a long history of teaching MIL in elementary schools, with a dedicated Competence Center established at the University of Teacher Education in 2004 and a comprehensive development concept for all K-12 schools in 2008. A weekly MIL lesson is mandatory for most pupils. The canton has a coherent strategy, provides support for teaching materials, and offers extensive information resources. Municipalities and individual schools have significant autonomy in local enactment, while the authorities focus on structuring information and facilitating partnerships.
In Canton 5 2014, the Competence Center for ICT in Schools was established within the Department of Elementary School and Education. The authorities play a central role in regulating and financing infrastructure, structuring information, and mandating teaching materials and teacher training. The canton collaborates with the University of Teacher Education to provide further training for teachers, offering guidance for instruction and infrastructure recommendations. Municipalities often are responsible for financing the infrastructure.
In Canton 6 authorities have been actively promoting MIL in public schools for the past 20 years. They launched their first strategy in 2004 and have commissioned various projects to support its enactment. The current approach focuses on providing supporting materials and further training for teachers. A website offers guidelines and examples for developing MIL concepts. While the canton sets overall guidelines, a large part of the administrative responsibility is delegated to individual schools. Teachers are required to undergo extensive basic training to teach MIL.
This description of six cantons shows that some have long-standing traditions of promoting MIL and developing their own guidelines and policies for schools and municipalities. Cantons four and six for example, have started their own policy enactment and design process much before the national foundations were laid. The document analysis shows that the cantons provide very different contexts for MIL policy and use different strategies – such as the collaboration with the teacher universities to account for the societal demands of incorporating more MIL in public schools.
7.3. Development of the Vignettes
Following these descriptions, the next step of analysis is to integrate both data sources and formulate vignettes [31], which illustrate and accentuate strategies which differentiate the cantons from each another. The research team formulated two contrasting vignettes to emphasize two different approaches.
Vignette 1 – The Enabler
In the Enabler canton, a long-standing tradition of MIL education exists. In the early 2000s, the cantonal authorities initiated a systematic approach to MIL in schools, recognizing the need for new competencies in the digital age. Measures included developing a dedicated MIL subject with a corresponding curriculum and time allocation in the official school schedule. Pilot schools were also enabled to experiment with new approaches, receiving financial incentives to explore innovative solutions in infrastructure and pedagogy. The Enabler canton takes on a supportive role, establishing a framework with conditions that aim to stimulate strategic developments in schools and communities with minimal pressure or interference. A competence center has been established to support this effort, providing information, and developing content for schools. The Enabler canton adheres to the principles of “communities know what is right for them” and “he who pays commands,” resulting in limited knowledge of the current situation in schools and the satisfaction levels of teachers and school leaders regarding MIL implementation. Regional solutions are emerging with significant differences, raising concerns about equity of access and development of uniform competencies as mandated by the curriculum.
Vignette 2 – The Developer
The Developer canton only began discussing MIL with the introduction of the national curriculum. Prior to that, there were minimal guidelines for communities regarding MIL. Driven by national regulations, the Developer canton felt compelled to swiftly introduce a comprehensive MIL enactment plan and a cohesive strategy to ensure schools have the necessary resources to teach the subject. To accomplish this, the authority partnered with specific service providers, such as the University of Teacher Education, external infrastructure providers, and experts, to develop concepts for providing teaching materials and purchasing equipment. A comprehensive cantonal plan for digital expansion and basic equipment for all schools is in place, with infrastructure managed and coordinated by a central office. Since the public discussion about the importance of MIL gained traction, the canton has produced a series of policy documents, instructions, and guidelines. For instance, a job description for ICT-coordinators has been established, a minimum requirement for teacher training for all teachers has been implemented and teaching materials were declared mandatory. The Developer canton is making concerted efforts to rectify past developmental shortcomings and missed opportunities. The cantonal documents extensively reference the national curriculum to emphasize the significance of adapting MIL. The Developer canton intends to monitor the development in schools and has instructed school inspectors to conduct quality controls through monitoring strategies. The canton has provided schools with a substantial amount of information in a short period of time. However, the individual experiences and frameworks of the schools have been largely overlooked. Some schools or communities feel disregarded and wish to develop their own approach to the task by involving local ICT services.
In summary, the Enabler canton has a longer history of MIL education and a more decentralized approach to enactment. The Developer canton has a more centralized approach and has quickly developed a comprehensive strategy for MIL implementation using regulations, standards, and monitoring. The Enabler canton’s approach may be more effective in fostering innovation and experimentation in schools, as it provides technical and pedagogical guidance and support. However, it may also lead to equity issues and a lack of standardization in MIL education. The Developer canton’s approach may help to ensure that all schools have the resources they need to teach MIL but may also inhibit innovation and create a lack of self-responsibility and autonomy among schools. The vignettes show that there are two parallel development processes that are based on different premises. How these two approaches may influence schools and teachers in their practice, will be discussed in the following.