Of the future of IT Managers in Schools (Was Replacing Servers ...)

[pcstru]

(Moved from http://www.edugeek.net/forums/hardware/168917-replacing-servers-age-virtualisation.html ), it was too far off topic by this time).

 

1. I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am pointing out that there is a diminishing need for high level technical skills. How you can draw the conclusion that this equates to me saying they have "poor technical skills" I have no idea. Please enlighten me.

You said : "You just have to look at the pittance that is being offered in salaries for an IT Manager to show how much schools value IT technical skills."

 

I think the following is reasonable :

 

a) schools underpay. I think that is almost explicit in the quote.

b) since they underpay, the market rate must be better, otherwise how can they meaningfully be said to underpay?

c) schools know this and are happy with it; they do not value IT technical skills so they advertise at under market rate and are comfortable with the compromises that might mean. Alternatively, they are simply incompetent.

d) since people can get better salaries elsewhere, the post will not attract people with skills that they can sell for a better deal.

e) schools therefore generally have people with poor skills compared to their better paid peers elsewhere.

 

2. This is what I hate most about the attitude of a "manager". I believe it is fundamentally wrong to pay as little as possible for technical skills. Just because the "market" ,whatever fickle beast that may be, thinks one should pay a pittance. I would rather value the individual. Do I value managerial skills more than technical skills? I do not.

To my mind, the 'market' is irrespective of any individual view of value. As a manager it would be odd not to be informed by "market value" when setting a salary on a post. Personally I 'value' both technical, managerial and almost every other skill people can acquire. As a 'manager', when I recruit I try to recruit what I need to do the job for a price that the business is willing to pay.

 

3. You make many assumptions some of which are wrong a) E-learning specialist would not necessarily be a teacher b) I never used the term "e-learning manager" I use the term specialist (see 2 for my views on this matter) c) As to my comments about teaching staff, 20 years teaching and interacting with many staff across a variety of subjects and establishments has lead me to this. Innovation in IT from teaching staff is a very rare beast indeed.

My apologies, you didn't say manager. However, specialist/manager whatever - what do they actually do? As I said I have experience of working with people who were tasked with doing what sounds suspiciously like what you have in mind, but since you haven't really said what they actually do, that may well be an assumption. In terms of who might fill that role - while it might not be a teacher, like Principals, it has to be unlikely in a publicly funded UK school, that non teachers would actually be considered. It's also a role that is unlikely to be seen as a full time

 

4. "As a general observation, it's not lack of innovation that is difficult when it comes to effective IT use in schools, it is poor implementation (change/project management)." This is one area I mainly agree, although I would emphasise the importance of effective and appropriate training (one area perhaps for the e-learning specialist)

 

It is very unusual that training isn't part of a project or programme delivery. When delivering cultural change in an organisation it tends to be the biggest single cost.

Edited April 18, 2016 by pcstru

[Ephelyon]

I'd agree with your points a-e) there, though I would comment on this from the other thread:

 

IT salaries in Schools have always seemed poor on average compared to the private sector. I'm not sure people here will recognise themselves as having poor technical skills (or thank you for implying they do) so perhaps schools just find that they can employ the people they need for the money they offer?

 

I believe the problem is that they don't know what they actually need, consequently don't advertise for it at the proper rate and therefore, indeed, don't get what they actually need... then again, not knowing how much better some affairs could be, they are often blind to this. I've certainly seen some schools happily swallow service standards that are way below the bar... I have also seen schools where the IT team are outstanding but get precious little reward.

 

I do believe we are - and should be - moving towards a sector with a specialist IT provision: an "educational IT manager", whether you call them an E-Learning Manager or anything else. However, I'd disagree that this should be a person with a tech-lite skillset. They should ideally come up through a technical route while gaining support, guidance and experience in the ethos of this sector, our roles in supporting young people, etc. Such a role may also be classed as a senior management/leadership position in their school depending on a number of factors. They are essentially NM-skilled but with a passion for - and demonstrable skillset in - understanding and applying technology to develop young people (as well as the organisation itself), this being something that they have been encouraged towards. And they are paid appropriately for their role as you might see in industry.

 

Technical people who don't aspire to "get all educational about it" and just want to focus on the IT side clearly have their place too as nothing gets done at all without them - so the Technician / Senior Tech would suit them best. But there would be also be "somewhere to go" for those who want to add a passion for what the technology does to their existing passion for what it is... and you would avoid the haemorrhaging of talent this sector currently faces when people hit NM and then realise there's nowhere left to go: the so-called "glass ceiling" for support staff.

 

It sounds a tad biased to say they should have a technical, not a teaching, background... until you bear in mind that teachers already have established career paths towards leadership that they can follow if they wish to. This would open up the same for us too, and I think it's fair to say we do have some people in our profession with the capacity for that, and many more with the potential to develop it.

[pcstru]

@Ephelyon : So you know what skill set they need and who you think they could be. I'm still none the wiser as to what you think these people would actually do?

 

In our case, we had a role which was "IT Across the Curriculum" (or similar) and they were focused on ticking the ICT boxes in Ofsted criteria. Practically that meant a focus on IT in the classroom, 'curation' of software or content and delivery of training. The biggest changes coming from the role here were use of Google Apps and Chromebooks - so quite substantial although both have had a somewhat mixed reception and it was expansion of the IT repertoire - there was no consolidation or rationalisation, so we now have some teachers doing Google while some stick with what they know and a few do both as it suits them.

 

One problem with the role for anyone technical - and I think the "specialist" tag hints at it, is that it is not thought of as a full time post. Practically that, as well as the emphasis on teaching and learning rather than 'tech' mean that it will be given to a teacher along with an appropriate increment on the leadership scale. Schools need opportunities like that to allow professional development of teaching staff - the chances of a non teacher getting it are (IMO) about the same as a non teacher being made Head - there is nothing to actually stop it but it is incredibly rare.

 

t sounds a tad biased to say they should have a technical, not a teaching, background... until you bear in mind that teachers already have established career paths towards leadership that they can follow if they wish to. This would open up the same for us too, and I think it's fair to say we do have some people in our profession with the capacity for that, and many more with the potential to develop it.

I think the other problem with your analysis is it looks to solve this problem of progression for "Network Managers". Perhaps unfortunately - this is a problem for individuals, it is not a problem for schools as businesses. Yes they may lose some talent as people move on but people do move 'up' into that position; schools are generally quite good places for young people to get a decent breadth of experience with technology (where in the private sector focus is usually much narrower), experience which can stand them in very good stead when they move on.

Edited April 19, 2016 by pcstru

[pcstru]

I wish - I have seen many new projects or programmes both in education and out (and mrwITch has seen even more) where there was a woeful lack of training and the cost of same was certainly NOT factored in.

 

Fair catch. My comment makes it sound like the majority of project and programme management is of a higher quality than it actually is. It is generally very poor in schools and often enough merely aspires to mediocrity in the private sector.

[CyberNerd]

I see part of my role is to automate as much of the manual processes as possible because it (usually) makes things more efficient.

My job 10 years ago was VERY different than it is today. 10 years ago it was all about changing mice, reimaging workstations and fixing servers.

Nowadays I've pretty much outsourced the client maintenance to the students (why the hell should I re-image a computer if they can do it themselves in 2 minutes ? It just doesn't make sense for me to do it, by the time the student has found me with their device and I've done it it's just wasted time). Server maintenance is moving rapidly towards being outsourced to cloud providers. Of course I still fix hardware on student machines when I need to and do the basic network stuff.

In essence I TRY and make myself redundant.

[SHimmer45]

Nowadays I've pretty much outsourced the client maintenance to the students (why the hell should I re-image a computer if they can do it themselves in 2 minutes ?

 

i find this part interesting, i know some school adopt this approach but i would not dream of getting students involved in providing support, seeing as they should be concentrating on studying

[CyberNerd]

i find this part interesting, i know some school adopt this approach but i would not dream of getting students involved in providing support, seeing as they should be concentrating on studying

 

Re-imaging is more like turning it off and on again nowdays. It's basic self-support.

[Ephelyon]

@pcstru, what they would do is a combination of the high-level technical side and working with teaching and leadership to strategically lead on the adoption and best utilisation of technology, both in and out of the classroom.

 

I fundamentally disagree that schools "need" opportunities like that to develop teaching staff; teaching staff already have a wealth of development opportunities (the entire sector focuses on them in that respect) - what is missing is those same opportunities for non-teachers.

 

I take the view that problems (of this nature) for individuals inherently are a problem for the organisation - it may just not be aware of that.

[mthomas08]

The time of the IT Manager are, I believe, drawing to an end. The number of times infrastructure and strategic decisions have to be made are very limited. How often do you change wireless or switches? As for the on-site stuff, as stated previously, on the decline. You just have to look at the pittance that is being offered in salaries for an IT Manager to show how much schools value IT technical skills. As for a symbiotic (my word) partnership between IT professionals and teachers, please! Call me a cynic, but after 31 years with time on both sides this is an illusion. Teachers and I do have to cite the new ones in particular here, stick with what they know best and suits them. So getting them, for example, to move their "stuff" to O365 will only work when you make their home folders read only, tell them they have 6 weeks and remove the drive after that. As for getting them to stop using removable media... Symbiosis or partnership suggests there are benefactors on both side. There are not. I see it more as a oligarchical relationship.

 

When teaching staff understand this relationship, only then can we move forward.

 

I would actually say the time for IT Managers is on the rise. Even for MATs they are going down the route of highly paid professionals to over see the entire Trust. That isn't necessarily Network administrator work either but generally - Your system will have this, I will setup everything and it's down to your School IT Staff to maintain. That School will still have an "IT Manager" who does the budgeting, planning and over see's generally any major projects. I also once saw a job rather local ish to me which was on £45K+ and in all honesty I was tempted to consider it (it was pretty much Network Manager but just for a Trust). I also find more and more Schools (that I see) are going for more experience and qualifications above the standard of employing Ex Students who know how to replace a Graphics Card. Although pay is still lacking compared to Business's I have seen a better pay in todays world compared to the lowest possible pay 10 Years ago when Schools wouldn't even consider another 1-2K to keep an experienced Staff. Now I see Schools willing to pay that extra 2K to keep some one.

 

You only have to see how Schools seriously struggle with IT because they don't have experienced or qualified IT Staff. My current job and my previous job are both examples - no direction just IT Staff fire fighting all day. IT is no different to the site work - it needs maintained unless you go Externally and pay some one else to do it. Unless of course you scrap IT and go back to basics.

 

Was going to post this in the other one but doing it here.

Edited April 19, 2016 by mthomas08

[PotNoodleTech]

i find this part interesting, i know some school adopt this approach but i would not dream of getting students involved in providing support, seeing as they should be concentrating on studying

 

It's an interesting one. You could argue the opposite, you are teaching them some seriously useful real life skills (I know that isn't high on school agendas at the mo as there's no box to tick for it), to be "IT self sufficient" so that when they do get a job in the future they increase their efficiently by being able to quickly solve basic IT issues without needing to queue to see an IT support staff member or wait 3 days for their problem to be escalated to first line support.

[pcstru]

@pcstru, what they would do is a combination of the high-level technical side and working with teaching and leadership to strategically lead on the adoption and best utilisation of technology, both in and out of the classroom.

I'm still struggling to see what that might look like. I've given some detail on what ours did. Does that sound like it fit's the bill or is it different in some way?

I fundamentally disagree that schools "need" opportunities like that to develop teaching staff; teaching staff already have a wealth of development opportunities (the entire sector focuses on them in that respect) - what is missing is those same opportunities for non-teachers.

It is just the case that when you get to the top of the tree, there is nowhere to go. It is kind of arbitrary where the tree top is for different professions. What possible progress is there within a school for a head? Why should NM's be special to the extent that we have to build tree extensions specially for them? What about cleaners, caterers, caretakers, admin staff etc etc - where is their progression for them? Fact is a school is there to educate children, not to act as a career vehicle for arbitrary roles. For those that do find themselves at the top of the ladder and who are frustrated at the lack of development opportunity - the answer is simple; if development won't come to you ...

I take the view that problems (of this nature) for individuals inherently are a problem for the organisation - it may just not be aware of that.

Sure, sometimes that is even true. I can't see that it is actually a problem for schools in the case of (technical) IT professionals.

[Ephelyon]

I don't know if I can flesh it out any further without getting into great detail that would arguably vary from school to school anyway. You could call it an education twist on a CIO-style role in the business world.

 

There's no reason why a school can't educate children while also providing adequately for its staff. The simple fact is that you can't recruit and retain the best with the way things are structured for anyone who isn't a teacher in this sector at the moment. That needs to change - it would be expensive but that's tough (I mean central funding from government should increase). I certainly wouldn't suggest it should be limited to IT staff in particular; I suppose it's just easiest to talk about that on EduGeek as it's our field. In business it's quite normal to consider that potential leaders could be drawn from anywhere in the organisation, and a well-run organisation of any sort does not put up artificial barriers to people's progress. That's what I'm talking about here: not adding further tree extensions, but removing the current glass ceiling so as to normalise with other sectors, which should have happened a long time ago (though I can see why it didn't). It's not as if any of this thinking is new either (and see attached).

 

As for the problems? Well, look at the resentment culture that has sprung up - the "us and them". All the stories we've heard over the years from people who have been broken by this system. It's a ridiculous nonsense that needs to end.

A new era for school leadership.doc

[SHimmer45]

It's an interesting one. You could argue the opposite, you are teaching them some seriously useful real life skills (I know that isn't high on school agendas at the mo as there's no box to tick for it), to be "IT self sufficient" so that when they do get a job in the future they increase their efficiently by being able to quickly solve basic IT issues without needing to queue to see an IT support staff member or wait 3 days for their problem to be escalated to first line support.

 

fair point, we make every effort to be available to staff & students in person and have multiple methods of faults to be reported so i hope they wouldn't have to wait "3 days" for a response / fix to a basic issue i understand its a broad statement

[speckytecky]

What continues to intrigue me is the in house IT support vs bought in IT support issue. In the 12 years I've been in schools IT support I've seen time and time again schools switch from In House to external providers only to be pulled up short when they realise that instead of getting pretty decent bang for buck they are now paying call out charges and that Admin, other Support and Teaching staff are actually having to carry out such mammoth procedures as changing toner cartridges on printers!

 

Seriously though, external providers are motivated by making a profit (a pretty healthy profit it is from what I've seen) and that factor often seems to be overlooked when outsourcing happens.

[pcstru]

I don't know if I can flesh it out any further without getting into great detail that would arguably vary from school to school anyway. You could call it an education twist on a CIO-style role in the business world.

I could call it anything but still be in the dark about what it does. Perhaps if I knew what it does, it would be easy to find a word for it!

 

Looking at it from another side, what innovative technology or uses of technology have been introduced to schools over the last decade which have made a real difference to student outcomes? VLE's? iPads? what?

 

There's no reason why a school can't educate children while also providing adequately for its staff. The simple fact is that you can't recruit and retain the best with the way things are structured for anyone who isn't a teacher in this sector at the moment. That needs to change - it would be expensive but that's tough (I mean central funding from government should increase). I certainly wouldn't suggest it should be limited to IT staff in particular; I suppose it's just easiest to talk about that on EduGeek as it's our field. In business it's quite normal to consider that potential leaders could be drawn from anywhere in the organisation, and a well-run organisation of any sort does not put up artificial barriers to people's progress. That's what I'm talking about here: not adding further tree extensions, but removing the current glass ceiling so as to normalise with other sectors, which should have happened a long time ago (though I can see why it didn't). It's not as if any of this thinking is new either (and see attached).

 

As for the problems? Well, look at the resentment culture that has sprung up - the "us and them". All the stories we've heard over the years from people who have been broken by this system. It's a ridiculous nonsense that needs to end.

I think when you propose something that senior leaders won't recognise as being needed and that costs a lot of money, time and effort, then you are onto a loser. Sure private companies don't put up barriers as such, but there are still plenty of dead end positions in the private sector which the only way to escape from is to move employer. When you apply for a job, there is no obligation on the employer to provide for progression without end. To be perfectly honest it sounds like you want to change the world when the obvious answer is to change yourself. I don't mean that personally, just that the solution to the lack of progression in schools for people with good skills and talent is already within their grasp. Given that, asking schools to spend money they haven't got is unlikely to receive a positive response from their leaders.

 

And really, does it hamstring schools to operate in that way? When you look at the people on Edugeek - do you really see evidence that schools are employing people who's talent and skills are second rate? I think that is a reasonable implication if what you say is true.

[pcstru]

What continues to intrigue me is the in house IT support vs bought in IT support issue. In the 12 years I've been in schools IT support I've seen time and time again schools switch from In House to external providers only to be pulled up short when they realise that instead of getting pretty decent bang for buck they are now paying call out charges and that Admin, other Support and Teaching staff are actually having to carry out such mammoth procedures as changing toner cartridges on printers!

 

Seriously though, external providers are motivated by making a profit (a pretty healthy profit it is from what I've seen) and that factor often seems to be overlooked when outsourcing happens.

 

Would you say there is any benefit in outsourcing if it is done properly or is it always going to just fail?

[Ephelyon]

Like I say - think CIO, but in education. Personally I think there are quite a few NMs on here who are already doing a large part of that role anyway, but not being recognised for it. As for the impact of technology, I think there are arguably some institutions that have taken a particular technology (either of the two examples you gave there could work) and used it to make a real difference to learning - take Essa Academy for one, whether or not you agree entirely with their methodology. As for the difference a good VLE setup can make, ask @GrumbleDook about some of the work Learning Possibilities has been doing in Wales (although I acknowledge there are other threads where some of the problems there have been discussed).

 

Then again, I personally feel the real impact of ICT on schools has been the same as with other organisations: automation. It means they are not only able to do things they were doing before but better/faster, but there are entirely new things they're doing that wouldn't be possible at all without technology. The combination of e-reg + parental texting has been proven to reduce truancy; points being automatically gained for e.g. full attendance (simply couldn't be done if someone had to go through every kid manually every day on paper); efficiencies in timetabling and cover; I've just finished tweaking a new report design that can be automatically generated so they can be printed and popped straight in an envelope without all the covering pages being done manually for each kid, saving hours; etc etc etc...

 

Learning outcomes are the core aim of the organisation, but what an organisation is (i.e. how well it runs) is just as important as what it does, and that's really what IT was always about. If you get the former wrong, there'll always be a ceiling on how far you can go with the latter anyway. Adding value to learning is always welcome but it's a bit of a sideshow really from an IT perspective - something often lost on leadership teams consisting solely of people from the main service delivery profession.

 

As for what I'm proposing, the intended audience isn't individual school leadership teams, but central government. Most senior leaders I've talked to (across many schools) get very antsy at first because of how much it would cost, but when asked how they'd react if they got funding for that (and only for that), they saw no real problem as long as the support and guidance given to non-teaching staff to prepare them for educational leadership was done properly and not a slapdash for-the-sake-of-it affair, which makes perfect sense.

 

As for changing the world? Well, I wouldn't put it that grandly, but I would say I don't think the right answer is to cop out of it by, as you put it, "changing myself instead". There is a real need for change of this sort in the sector, and if done properly it's a win-win all-round. And no, I'm not suggesting that everyone who works in schools is second-rate - in fact, I regularly fight that corner with condescending IT folk from the business world myself. But what I am saying is that education doesn't have the same capacity (or, to an extent, the inclination) to actually verify the quality of what they're getting when they recruit, so there are some cases where the skillsets will be a pretty mixed bag (thinking of myself here in particular) - and that could change too. Becta was doing some great work with that about 8 years ago before they bit the dust... :/

[Dave_O]

Only just picked this thread up again.

 

E-learning education specialist - might have the following skills - ability to use and apply Office 365 or Google Apps in an educational context (functional skills), knowledge of the administration/architecture of above tenancies, knowledge of corporate wireless/wired infrastructures just enough to know what is and is not possible (architectural knowledge).

 

As an example of the type of soft skills one might need

 

http://online.education.ed.ac.uk/content/edua11222-an-introduction-to-digital-environments-for-learning/

 

Ability to monitor and assimilate IT and education trends and give direction to the organisation.

 

Over the past 10 years and in the last 3 in particular, many services have moves into the "cloud". What schools need now is not just technical skills but the knowledge of how to integrate them effectively into the school as a whole. This change will inevitably lead to a reduction in technical knowledge within schools but to be honest that should not pose a problem.

 

Perhaps a graduate with an IT degree who then goes on to do an MSc in Digital Education (see above for details) would fit the bill nicely. Where they would sit in the hierarchy I'm not sure, possibly (dare I say it) middle management.

[Dave_O]

Would you say there is any benefit in outsourcing if it is done properly or is it always going to just fail?

 

Define done properly. School's don't know what they want and the requirements change too quickly and too frequently for a realistic contract to be drawn up. The experience of Barnsley and Sheffield schools was not good, most of them have either brought IT in house with a small number going back to a different third party provider.

[Dave_O]

It is very unusual that training isn't part of a project or programme delivery. When delivering cultural change in an organisation it tends to be the biggest single cost.

 

I didn't say that training wasn't part of a project or programme delivery, I was merely pointing out it's importance.

[Dave_O]

To my mind, the 'market' is irrespective of any individual view of value.

 

The 'market' is defined by individual view.

[Dave_O]

With

 

 

You said : "You just have to look at the pittance that is being offered in salaries for an IT Manager to show how much schools value IT technical skills."

 

I think the following is reasonable :

 

a) schools underpay. I think that is almost explicit in the quote.

b) since they underpay, the market rate must be better, otherwise how can they meaningfully be said to underpay?

c) schools know this and are happy with it; they do not value IT technical skills so they advertise at under market rate and are comfortable with the compromises that might mean. Alternatively, they are simply incompetent.

d) since people can get better salaries elsewhere, the post will not attract people with skills that they can sell for a better deal.

e) schools therefore generally have people with poor skills compared to their better paid peers elsewhere.

 

along with

 

And really, does it hamstring schools to operate in that way? When you look at the people on Edugeek - do you really see evidence that schools are employing people who's talent and skills are second rate? I think that is a reasonable implication if what you say is true.

 

 

My question is:- Do you think that people on Edugeek and by corollary IT staff in schools are second rate?

[LincolnE]

Personally, and this is just my two cents, I don't see an issue with the pay within schools for IT staff.

 

Whilst it's great to have good skill-sets and technical skills, the issue with schools is the staff budget is by far the most important thing in terms of cost to a school.

IT, whilst great, is not the be all and end all to schools. We are there to help process and facilitate teaching and learning (and whilst I can't deny technology is playing a bigger part in schools, it's still down to the way you teach it and integrate it into schools). You can still teach with poor IT resources, good teachers will learn not to rely on it.

 

The public sector, (certainly in education) doesn't work anywhere near the level of the private sector. We don't directly generate income, we can't have an increase in staff cost offset against increased revenue. For better or for worse, you can't easily just create new roles in schools to retain key staff like you can in the business world. The problem with schools is that people rarely move around. If you get to the level of network manager, you tend to stay in one school for a considerable amount of time. This means there aren't many opportunities for normal technicians to step up the mark within education.

 

The offset of this is we have longer holidays, generally less stress, guaranteed pensions and, for the most part, less working hours. It's all good and great comparing to the private, but I've got quite a few network manager friends working in that sector who often have to do 12+ hour shifts a day to get stuff sorted and to meet deadlines. For me, these outweigh the extra money that could be got elsewhere, you can't have your cake and eat it.

Edited April 19, 2016 by LincolnE

[pcstru]

My question is:- Do you think that people on Edugeek and by corollary IT staff in schools are second rate?

I don't think the package people get when working for schools is substantially below "market rate" - so no, I don't therefore think that there must be a knock on in terms of candidate quality when recruiting. I'd agree that people who work in schools can generally, with their skills, get more in the private sector (they can also get less) but I don't think salary is the be all and end all when considering the 'value' to an employee of a particular job. As a personal example, I think I could probably add another 1/3 to my salary if I looked outside of education, but I very much enjoy what I do and that is much more important to me than at this point in my life than more money in the bank.

 

 

The 'market' is defined by individual view.

 

You will need to elaborate. Any market in the sense we are speaking of is an aggregation of the individual instances, so to find the "the market rate" for IT Managers in schools we might take the salary of all the IT Managers working in schools and go for the average. I don't really see how you can meaningfully say that that is "defined by individual view". Any individual given the entire data set should be able to come to the same number for "market rate". It is defined by math, not opinion.

[TechMonkey]

I think there are 2 things overlooked here.

 

1) What is in a title? I think people are right that the IT manager position is dying because in my head an IT Manager has a fairly narrow role. The role of System Administrator on the other hand is on the rise as we take on phones and virtual infrastructure and networking and cloud solutions. With a lot of the MATs you will see both positions, a Manager to wrangle contracts and SLAs and an Administrator to wrangle the systems. Now obviously this is semantics because one persons manager is anothers administrator but I can see this happening more. Maybe the sysadmin role is outsourced in some places but then the manager wrangles them as well.

 

2) Money or Compensation? From my years in Education I have seen some rubbish admins but I have also seen some excellent ones. I don't think you can claim that as the pay is rubbish all school admins are sub par. My general impression is that School admins are up and coming IT people, cutting their teeth, or old hands who don't want the pressure. That isn't a complete analysis, I know other categories for various reasons, but those seem to be the main 2. This leads on to the fact that School IT is less stressful, there are the distinct times (holidays) when maintenance can happen (though less and less) and more often you aren't going to be called in on a Saturday or get a call at 2pm as you are on call. This adds in to the equation, so less pay but more sociable hours. Also we generally don't specialise so being a Jack of all Trades, while no bad thing, does mean we can't command the big bucks.