The other bandwidth issue comes with the remote hosting. Whereas with onsite servers you can easily get 1G (full duplex) per server, even 10G.
Politicians and their pay, kids with their behaviour, parents with their parental responsibilty, schools and their BSF project...
I have to get millions of quotes for any devolved capital budgets for scrutiny by the SMT and governors and say why I spend X amount on Y product... I'm responsible and accountable for my budgets. Yet with the BSF projects, it seems that you have little accountability from the contractors side - unless it implicitly says in the contract they're accountable, they can take the cash and run and shrug off the blame on their slopey slopey shoulders of responsibility.
Just WHO is in charge, just WHO cares about these things ? Ask anyone and they'll all point fingers at each other so noone gets the blame.
I might not be the most popular person with some of my views on BSF and I admit that for some schools you are talking about 'damage limitation' now ... certainly a conversation last week did centre around that aspect of it.
And yes ... there has to be one person with ultimate responsibility. That is one of the criteria ... however, the success / failure criteria can often be just a tad vague ... as with any Govt project. PfS give guidance and instruction, but if an LA goes down a particular route ...
Don't get me wrong, it's not the concept I disagree with, it's the idiocy of the systems and procedures in place..
The idea of building a school that is relevant and usable and forward-thinking is fantastic.
I REALLY want things to work here - our school is in desperate need of an update and investment in a lot of areas being a co-funded aided school...
my concern is that BSF has become yet another "one size fits all" approach where nothing is about education and improving standards and everything (just like they did with the CLC's) becomes about money money money and the appearance of doing something good rather than actually DOING it.
It's Friday... I need another black coffee laced with prozac.
The footprint of each school is determined by a formula, driven by the number of students planned to be attending when it opens. This formula generally results in smaller classrooms, lack of office space, lack of circulation space, lack of storage space... smaller labs, smaller prep rooms, smaller workshops, no staffroom ... get the picture? You even get less car parking space, as the planners believe we should all be using public transport or car sharing.
So having every classroom that were big enough to accomodate a typical class size of students all with computers (even small form factor/thin client) ends up being a total non-starter, as there would be no space for anything else.
The design he came up with managed to leave out fume cupboards in labs, provide no ventilation in the prep rooms where chemicals were stored/prepared, and he even designed a prep room with so many doors there was no space to install wall racking to store anything.
At my school, the design does not provide any accomodation for any ICT technicians....... or a NM
Last edited by broc; 5th June 2009 at 01:40 PM.
as this is Building Schools for the Future should they not look at what requirements are likely to be 5-10 years down the line not what they expect in the first year of opening?
There appear to be far too many Architects who appear to be frustrated arists. Thus appearing more concerned with the outside looks of a building than anything inside them. Personally I like the approach of a Moscow judge for sentenced an architect to live in the apartment building he had designed. (The Russians have a rather practical approach to bad buildings...)and sat next to the "Architects" who in turn rubbed their little hands with glee at being given free license to design new conceptual buildings which had no real purpose but to visually look good.
As far as planning for the future, it could make matters worse. In areas with falling rolls, the schools would be even smaller
Bottom line, it's all about cost..... who cares about the vision?
Last edited by broc; 5th June 2009 at 02:00 PM.
[QUOTE=DAckroyd;339983]Why are they still putting in computer rooms? - you want a couple at most but the subject IT should go and all classrooms should have a class worth of computers round the edge so you can just go and use computers when required/QUOTE]
You'd need some huge rooms to make this possible. Especially once you account for things like corners, doors, etc. Then you need to have sufficent space left to accomodate a room which is now going to be at least 2m "shorter" and 4m "narrower".
Blame avoidance and *ability* i.e. they know they couldn't do it. Public sector pay isn't much of an incentive for talent, nor is the depreciated kind of time-serving career politics that's still alive and well in the public sector (any Western Euripean country). And are there any career progression paths in these places besides the one to Bureacrat[tm]?why would anyone look at the whole project? Then there would be someone to BLAME!
I've had a fair amount of contact with this world via t'other half whose first career as an "Interior Architect" was to try and make innovative artistic statements usable by real people. Thing is, although most architects get sentenced to a life of loft-conversions, a large part of it simply *is* about the art and artistic statements are what they are essentially trained to do.There appear to be far too many Architects who appear to be frustrated arists. Thus appearing more concerned with the outside looks of a building than anything inside them
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)