Edit Diello beat me to it slightly..
But that is point what ever you think it is NOT about our jobs as that argument won't work and all we will been seen as is techies trying to safe guard jobs.
As was said I think Tony is playing devils advocate as someone from PSF will be coming up with these arguments and unless you got good response then already lost.
As for jobs the biggest issue is people burying head in the sand and thinking that somehow status quo can be kept (that is not going to happen unless politics intervenes).
Problem is people think I will wait till BSF comes and then work out what going to do. But reality is you need to be thinking about your career now and sorry to bring that old term up make sure if want to stay in education ict that your educational focused (that is not code word for becoing TA by the way).
I have been planning what I am going to do when BSF comes to us (2012/2013 approx) for past 2 years and will carry on till no longer an issue or it is 2012.
Last edited by russdev; 12th March 2008 at 04:14 PM.
I'm not saying it be used as an excuse for why we oppose BSF. I'm just trying to say that to tell someone to calm down and not get worked up is not going to work when you take into consideration the underlying factors (job loss/uncertainty).
I don't want people to say 'I hate BSF because I'll have no job,' but we must still have an interest in our own future.
Sorry I wasn't trying to have a go or anything, I know the point you were making.
I respect Tony (Grumbledook) for the line he is taking; I don't always agree with him, but that's how life is sometimes, I am certain people don't always agree with me!
The views Tony expresses are representative of the sorts of answers we will all get from BSF Consultants and Partnership for Schools in defence of the BSF program so you might as well get used to it. Whether Tony agrees with them personally or not is down to his own conscience but someone needs to play devils advocate here and Tony does so eloquantly.
The reality is right now it is too early in the BSF life-cycle for most schools to say if the managed service will work for them or not. I suspect that for some schools it will, for others it will not. What is important is that everyone be as well informed as they can be, and ensure they get involved in the BSF process at their school/LA as early as they can, if they are allowed to do so.
We aren't going to stop BSF dead in its tracks. The first few waves of schools will go down the managed services route; depending upon the lessons learned later waves may end up doing things differently, time will tell. Even in the first few waves there are variations in the BSF model emerging, some with more LA involvement, some with less.
A couple of years ago at the start of BSF, Partnership for Schools was adamant that the solution for all schools was centralised server farms, remote network management, with a single technician onsite to replace toner; things have moved on since then, schools & LAs are being more successful in arguing the case for more local support.
On a positive note, I suspect some of the consortia bidding for BSF contracts across England are now beginning to realise school ICT is not as simple and as straight forward as they originally thought. I believe we will see more cracks appearing with maybe a few more of the bidders pulling out ....
This idea is to get the average person onside to try and stop the BSF forcing Managed Services… ..
Yet Tony gives these people who would never have thought of the information he supplies the information to query us… and as they say… “Information is Power”
It then becames difficult to constantly bash the MSP's when you actually here what they have to say and what their proposals are first hand....instead of the heresay and smoke and mirrors that seems to be everyone elses experience. So no doubt he has to do the fence sitting because BSF isn't going away and it's better to keep an open mind so as to be able to negotiate better deals instead of a purely obstinate approach.
At the end of the day not everyones experience is going to be the same, and no doubt there are some people for whom the whole experience won't turn into the apocalyptic scenario you endlessly describe.
THE IDEA OF THIS THREAD IS SO AS SOMEONE CAN DO AN ARTICLE....THE IDEA OF THE ARTICLE I HOPE IS TO PAINT THE BSF OUTSOURSING IN A BAD LIGHT...
it's not about negotiating deals with MSPs.. ITS ABOUT GETTING THE PUBLIC TO SEE THE BAD SIDE OF BSF OUTSOUCING IN SCHOOLS THAT HAVE GOOD ICT...
So having someone bigging up the outsourcing is not a good thing.... why he's doing it I have no idea..
and if you look at this forum you'll see why you were dozing in your server room having an afternoon nap I was trying to get this forum up and started because most people act like you.. people who really couldn't care less
Yes and the average person uses the information given to them or at hand.. if they have limited information then they make decisions on that...
If they have an intelligent person feeding them harmful (to us) informatoin then they will use that...
I have information to hand that can cause a lot of damage and harm to a certain group.... yet I choose to remain silent so no damage is caused... or I could open my big mouth and play devils advocate and ruin them...
Last edited by GrumbleDook; 12th March 2008 at 06:06 PM.
What GD is doing is being a "Critical Friend". He's pointing out the arguments that private companies will use against us, showing us where our weak spots are so we can tighten up our case against managed services. I honestly don't believe he's setting us up for a fall. Much better to have this brought to our attention now than not have an answer when push comes to shove. If GD really wanted to screw us up then surely he'd sit back and say nothing while we took our partially formed argument to "the public".
Nobody is right 100% of the time. We all get things wrong. So rather than bring an ill-prepared argument to the table because we get upset when someone, a friend, points out a flaw in our case, let's benefit from what GD is saying and sharpen our case. Be rational even though the stakes are so high, because losing your temper in an argument might make you feel good for a while, but if the result is you lose the case, what are you left with?
Work with the grain.
conehead (17th March 2008)
Yes, in this conversation I am purely playing the Devil's Advocate.
No matter how much I think will be good for some schools, I know it will be a disaster to so many others, and even in the schools that it would be god for there will be a backwards step in a number of areas.
Please note that my definition of good vastly differs to that of others. Yes, I am senior manglement. My primary concern is that ICT has a positive impact on the learning that takes place in the school, and the positive impact can be measured by an increase in achievement and attainment of students, a reduction in absence (authorised and unauthorised) and the improvement of leadership within the school at all levels. I have held these views for the last 8 years since I started getting involved in more than just the box on the desk, being influenced by a number of people who truly are innovative (a fair few of them are lurkers on here!), and it is good to see that the above are the same base criteria that PfS and Becta use too. Believe me, it is not a coincidence. The same people who have influenced me have influenced others.
Yes, there are hard decisions to be made about a choice between choosing the right technology and methodology, or what can be afforded, implemented and used correctly. n some schools this is a big difference, in others not so big a difference, but a difference nonetheless.
A lot of the arguements and concerns raised are valid. However, they are not coaxed in te right language, aimed at the right people or supported by the right groups. The two largest factors in this is that most of us have limited experience on educational leadership, giving us the ability to says what is making a difference. The other factor is that we have no true measurement about how good we are and the impact we have. If we can deal with these then people will take it more seriously.
*Even then* there may not be anything that we, either individually within our schools or collectively as a group, can do about it as some of this is school, LA or Govt politics.
I will continue playing Devil's Advocate until someone else picks up the reins ... and then I will challenge *their* views. I've always found that the best way of learning to battle someone is to learn how they themselves fight. For those Terry Pratchett fans ... just think about Thud.
To be honest folks I can understand why Grommit is narked. The thread is meant to be about taking a look at the other, perhaps nastier, side of BSF. Looking at the problems it caused rather than to solutions it claims to offer.
I can also understand why many would be frustrated that I defend it, but mainly do so when they attack it. The BSF bidders will not come onto the site and defend themselves as that is commercial suicide. Govt agencies will not come on and defend themselves because that is political suicide. Instead I can only feed back from conversation had, reports from meetings in other areas ... and try not to use hearsay (not the manufactured pop group ... but unverified information heard or received from another).
Given a chance I would like to take the other stance for a change.
I also have to apologies to the group in general as work commitments have prevented me so far from sorting out meetings with other bidders. I would like to do more of that sort of thing, to go to their offices and challenge them in person, but it is done in my own time (as it was for those others at the RM meeting) and is difficult to fit in. Should the opportunity arise for more meetings to take place then I would prefer to have a combination of those that want to challenge the status quo as well as those that believe that we need to work with them, but change their direction.
No offence here... I understand the rational of the thread but this doesn't make the arguments on the other side any less true..
The point isn't to sit and go "Oooooh, bad!" and then let that lie so the tabloid idiots (sorry but they are!) can grab the most sensationalist rubbish from the lot to create a little more sales... it's to take a long hard but rational look at the arguments and then point out the holes.
If we talk like a bunch of stereotypical old women we'll get treated as such and if nought else GD (names changed to indite the guilty) provides the sort of counter argument that's required to refine our own points regarding the down side to BSF. He's not writing their PR so let's not treat him or any other authors of positives as "traitors". That's just plain dumb.
Last edited by contink; 12th March 2008 at 09:53 PM.
DB? No .. I'm GD ... he is God, I am just a poor minion, slaving over a stand at BETT and nicking lots of pizza.
i think you're the one getting the wrong end of the stick...i was just trying to reason as to why GD is playing 'devil's advocate'.....
but he's big enough and ugly enough to articulate his position without my interjection. As he has done on numerous occasions. Looks like you're the one who's been snoozing while he's posted numerous posts in previous threads in a similar vein.
I do accept you're point about the point of this thread, particularly as the most of the internet articles paint a bright, rosy future for BSF managed IT. Most of it lazy journalism and I agree it's important to redress the balance in favour of pointing out the pitfalls and dangers of bsf managed IT.
Last edited by torledo; 12th March 2008 at 09:57 PM.
Ok i have just done 3 hours of Yoga and I am feeling chilled again :-)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)