Hull BSF goes to RM (Research Machines)

[broc]

Though not directly from the local authority alot of ICT money does "pass through" their hands ie: Harnessing Technology grant. Becta Local authorities - Funding - Harnessing Technology Grant - Harnessing Technology funding 2010-2011 guidance for local authorities



School governors do have the say on how their school is run and who is employed and whether to sign up for BSF or not (quite rightfully too). But Local authorities do have a responsibility to account for how tax payers money is spent in their authority and have been known to claw back underspend from schools and audit their accounts.

I agree with you on both points.... but the school is ultimately responsible for how it chooses to spend things like harnessing technology grants. If a grant is 'ring-fenced' for capital expenditure (as is often the case) the school can choose to set aside money it might have used for technology to pay for staff wages..... its all a matter of balancing the budget by moving money between 'pots'. In my experience School financial managers are quite adept at moving money around while staying within the rules

The underspend issue is a different matter; one the one hand schools are expected to fund major capital repairs but without being seen to be holding a 'surplus'. This whole 'surplus' issue arose years ago when someone asked the Govt how much money were schools stashing away without bothering to ask why..... the issue became very political, which is why there is an arbitrary 5% cap on carry-over.

If the school can demonstrate why they are building a surplus they may be allowed to keep it; at the school where I was a governor, we invested income from the sports facilities for several years running in order to accumulate enough money to pay to resurface an all-weather pitch... this was a condition placed upon us by Sports England, The FA, and a number of bodies who gave the school a grant to build the all-weather pitch in the first place.

School accounts are regularly audited, and rightly so as it is public money they are spending. A school should always be able to justify why money is spent...... but in my experience as a governor (and a school employee) I have yet to come across any audit which has questioned the staffing levels or roles & responsibilities of those employed by the school. For that matter, I don't remember Ofsted questioning this either.

[monkeyx]

My school was similarly concerned and in order to convince schools the LA undertook a extensive TCO to evaluate whether BSF represents value for money. It came out that the schools on average (some invest more than others) spent more per pupil on ICT than was proposed by the BSF process and so would save a considerable amount of money. However it has to be remembered there is a large capital investment at the beginning from PFS that schools would not get otherwise and you are not really comparing like for like but I would expect all LA entering into BSF to do this as a minimum.

Legacy equipment and training should also be given a value (replacing perfectly good switches just because they are not cisco is one example) in this process, though as we all know it is cheaper often to replace a printer than keep maintaining the toner for it. This is why I made sure I was involved as soon as possible in the process so we were not paying for things we didn't need.

Would you care to share the figures for how you worked this out? ie Fact not waffle! If public money was spent, then hopefully there will be no problem with this document being reporoduced on a public forum.

After the LA top slice a BIG percentage of the money (I am not quoting our own figures just for now because it is forming the basis of an APBC and I do not want to share the figures publically), our LA is junking existing MIS development, VLE Development even if the host school offers a higher functional level, than their replacement system! A large sum of money is given up front, but it taken back via a 5 year support charge and the need to replace lots of perfectly good equipment, software and services.

I think that a lot of schools could have got better value for money by keeping their existing system and using some extra money to further develop their own systems! Where is the freedom to choose and innovate?

[cookie_monster]

our LA is junking existing MIS development, VLE Development even if the host school offers a higher functional level, than their replacement system!

This enforced mediocrity idea is pathetic. Why not just leave schools that are ahead of the curve and help failing schools, the idea of forcing one bland idea upon everyone is a complete innovation killer.

[donutcat]

Isn't it a shame this whole thread exists. Why take a really good idea, fixing/rebuilding all secondary schools, and force the people involved to have to choose their IT aliances to get it. Seperate out the projects, have a building programme that looks at buildings, and then have an IT programme that asseses and upgrades failing IT departments/systems/approaches. I have never been checked on what I do in school by any authority other than school managers, and although I am the expert employed to manage the IT direction of the school, it would be good to know that someone is checking on me and others, stopping schools getting into the IT mess that BSF is trying to fix on the back of the buildings projects in the first place.

That is all.
DC

[chris57]

I currently work in one of the new academys in hull and I found out just before the christmas holidays I would most likely be tupeing to RM which will be happening this year. Only found out when a letter droped through the door asking me to attend a meeting about it.

so at the moment a little bit worryed about it all.

[ians-2010]

Is there anyone out there who has experience of BSF under the VT Group.
I am paticularly interested in onsite ICT staff and the role of the Network Manager.

Thanks

[ROBOCOP]

I currently work in one of the new academys in hull and I found out just before the christmas holidays I would most likely be tupeing to RM which will be happening this year. Only found out when a letter droped through the door asking me to attend a meeting about it.

so at the moment a little bit worryed about it all.

Apparently the first part of their selection process is a spelling test

[GoldenWonder]

it would be good to know that someone is checking on me and others, stopping schools getting into the IT mess that BSF is trying to fix on the back of the buildings projects in the first place.

Funnily enough our authority has started doing exactly that - auditing ICT in all schools. We (i.e the NM,me!) were audited not long ago and it was a) good to see were doing the right thing in their eyes and b) useful to compare notes with the other schools audit results.

A few improvements points gave me a something to work on as well.

Sadly though, this process has started now, and as BSF starts next year it probably negates the point of it.

[jsnetman]

Sadly though, this process has started now, and as BSF starts next year it probably negates the point of it.

This has recently started in our LEA and I suspect it is because of BSF that they are doing it, i.e getting all the schools up to scratch before BSF comes in.

[ROBOCOP]

I've heard a rumour that Morgan Sindall are on the verge of pulling out of the Hull BSF as they can't agree contractual terms with Hull CC - anyone else heard anything?

Financial Close is certainly overdue.