LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDo you feel that we need to have more options open to schools about what they do under BSF?
Yes - give us a chance to show we can do it and let us continue innovating!
Yes - but we might have to compromise and meet and official standards
No - They would stitch schools up in a different way
No - They would still stitch tech support staff a different way
Do you feel that we need to have more options open to schools about what they do under BSF?
Given the huge incentive coming from business for BSF ICT investment in schools Tony, do you really think that most schools would *want* choice? In other words, when the government come along and offer millions in ICT investment and rebuilding, most Heads would snap their hands off because their business is education and BSF is stellar for promoting a better learning environment and more investment in that. ICT support staff and choice in ICT provision are low on the list when it comes to new builds. Believe me.
I am sure many schools are very happy for the prospect of BSF ICT funding, but I suspect almost all are also very unhappy with the conditions being imposed (e.g. Managed ICT Services).
Don't under-estimate the HT. They want control of everything that goes on in their schools, I believe part of the reason for delays to the early waves of BSF is due to LAs and Schools trying to argue against Managed ICT Services, admittedly so far without much success.
However, sooner or later something has to give, & there is now focus from No 10 looking at the delays to BSF & maybe Partnership for Schools will have to give some ground too.
Does BSF affect Foundation/Trust schools?
Not sure; I once asked a Partnership for Schools consultant that question, and got a stony silence in reply. I suspect they hadn't written that part of the 'rules'' book then.Originally Posted by Kyle
My instinct would be to say that if a foundation/trust school wanted BSF ICT funding they would have to play by P4S rules, however if a school were to decide to become a trust/foundation school after taking the BSF ICT money they might be able to withdraw fom the contract, but it would depend upon the T&C in the contract.
I think, ideally, a half-way solution would be better. A scenario where the schools could opt into a managed service and possibly some kind of procurement system that allows the cost savings to still be had.
Of course, schools should have to meet a minimum specification but after that they should be allowed to innovate as they see fit. Maybe with Ofsted-style inspections of ICT development and use.
I can only tell you what I was told at a meeting at my daughter's Foundation school, where as part of the BSF deal the council is planning to close several 6th forms, and create one central 6th form college. When I pointed out that foundation school funding doesn't come from the council, I was told quite bluntly that the government would stop that part of the funding covering the (Foundation) 6th form.
Now, I've been told, by some members on these forums, that 6th form funding comes from a different "pot", and that stopping funding might be a little more difficult than the council employees said at the meeting. It was just the finality with which they said it that made me feel as if this /objectionroute had been thoroughly explore.
I seem to have lost the ability to edit my posts. I meant to say "objection/route", and the final word should read "explored".
It is a little anal, I know, but I come from a generation who like to see a sharp crease in their trousers and a well ironed...(continued page94)
the Edit button seems to be missing
Last edited by beeswax; 11th June 2008 at 07:10 PM.
Started a new thread for the Edit problem.
Fixed ... please continue the debate.
i was talking to my partner and she told me it is exctly what happenes was not called bsf but when i told her about it she said it what they did with nhs ict and all the other departments ect ect and she told me they had nothing but problems and in the end the changed it all back to what it was befor but not befor having ie intergration of depatments. it the goverments wayf trying to save money and it keeps proving again and again it does not work why do the not listen.
The question that should be asked is why BSF insists on a managed service yet Academy's aren't required to have one.
Academy's have the choice of how they run their ICT, and each one can be procured seperately as a standalone solution, they can employ their own technicians but they still get the money for the kit! Two-tier system if you ask me!
Since Partnerships for Schools run both BSF and Academy's programmes, why is there this disparity? What's good for the goose ... (thought I'd add a Christmas reference!).
The answer to this depends on the individual school.
For us, we'd have been better off with the money and a couple of the consultants. But who is to say in that scenario we'd have got the consultants of that calibre?
Another nearby school seems to be of the attitude that they are simply working in the facilities provided, and it is for the authority to decide on capital programmes with a long legacy.
Swings and roundabouts..
Having debated the BSF on this forum for nearly a year has anyone got any positive feedback of how well the BSF schools throughout the country have done.
Having spoken to certain individuals from various positions on BSF there doesn't seem to be any real information out there except for the negative info which keeps cropping up.
Has any Government IT initiative ever worked out? Take the NHS for instance?
Looks to me that events are to take a turn whether it be the Tories or Labour on capital spend!
Has anyone got anything else to add? (Tony?)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote