Oi Oi.. Whats going on here then ?!?! PfS and BSF ?

[Grommit]

Can someone please explain as it seems a bit blurred to me.. Are the BSF saying that the LGFL's or Counties might keep ICT in house ?

 

Or is it to give RM and others a earlier and stronger say ?

 

Latest news from the BSF

 

20 September 2007

 

Press release: Stakeholder voices to play key role in BSF Procurement Review

 

Partnerships for Schools is inviting the BSF community to take part in a series of workshops and meetings as part of a targeted review of the procurement process that aims to introduce even greater efficiencies to the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.

 

As the pace of delivery of the BSF programme picks up pace, now is an ideal time for PfS to engage architects, designers, ICT specialists, construction companies and procurement experts in conversation to find out their views on improvements to the BSF process.

 

Download Partnerships for Schools' full press release on the launch of the BSF Procurement Review.

 

http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/documents/BSFProcurementReview20.9.07.pdf

[CyberNerd]

Architects, designers, ICT specialists, construction companies and

procurement experts are being invited to engage in a conversation with PfS

 

Clearly you'd have to be a director of a large educational IT firm such as RM to be considered a specialist. I doubt the likes of us would get an invite. worth asking though.

[russdev]

WE will try and get some invites it maybe they are limited (most of these things are) but we have number of contacts so we will go and ask.

 

Russell

[GrumbleDook]

Can I also ask for a list of members that would *want* to go along to these events.

 

I know some of the meetings will be an issue because of locality but the longer the list the better the chance someone can attend and be a representative.

 

If you can email you details to [email protected] with your full name, your member name, your position at your school and your LA (this is for working out who can attend what meetings and none of these details will be shared with anyone other than EduGeek.net staff).

[Grommit]

Our Idea should be to try and keep the ICT in-house for schools that have strong ICT already in-house..

 

And maybe a supportive Uber ICT Consultant working for the Council "advising" the ICT Managers on the governments vision.

 

And then only offer outscourcing to schools that need it..

 

But the schools have to heva a choice as amny many schools have a good, happy and strong relationship with their ICT Managers

 

it's just FITS..

[Grommit]

bump

[GrumbleDook]

Sorry, been waiting for a response from Partnershipforschools.

 

We have an invite for a workshop next month. This will be under Charter House rules ... I suppose to allow people to speak freely. The workshop will be focusing on how best to maximise the impact of ICT within the programme.

 

The press release pretty much says it all really ...

 

Your proposed solution (from above and previous posts) is a damned good one ... and it seems to be similar to that proposed in a few areas ... from what I have heard leading SSAT schools are helping develop this (Djanogly and Parrs Wood are two that I know of).

 

If there are no objections I will go as the representative at this event (no one has emailed me yet to add themselves onto the 'I want to be involved list' other than those who came to the last session) but if anyone has anything to add to Grommit's theory then please let me know.

[Oops_my_bad]

Are the BSF saying that the LGFL's or Counties might keep ICT in house ?

Excuse me but where does it say that?

[GrumbleDook]

They are saying that they are looking at all of the completed bids, the open school (or soon to open), those at preferred bidder status and seeing what differences there are between them all

 

If you take Newcastle ... they are going in-house within the LA ... but that does not mean that all the schools keep things exactly as they are ... stay may get TUPEd to the LA ...

 

It is looking at all options and having a frank discussion about the impact.

[MK-2]

 

Your proposed solution (from above and previous posts) is a damned good one ... and it seems to be similar to that proposed in a few areas ... from what I have heard leading SSAT schools are helping develop this (Djanogly and Parrs Wood are two that I know of).

 

Djanogly?!!

You've got to be kidding me. A school/academy that thinks its a good idea to have one teacher teaching over 100kids at a time, with other teachers 'supporting', they dont have desktops or laptops, just tablets, and also have glass walls so you can see through to the next classroom.

And it's a school that has failed on many things from what I've heard (one of our teachers went to work there).

[webman]

Through the elimination of traditional computer suites ...

 

...

 

http://www.djanogly.notts.sch.uk/C7/ICT/Image%20Library/DSCF5930.jpg

 

Hmmm.... That looks remarkably like a computer suite to me!

 

http://www.djanogly.notts.sch.uk/C7/ICT/default.aspx

[Grommit]

That is great Grumbledook as you seem to be the most articulate one of us and therefore should get the point over in government speak…

 

My in-house idea is not for it to be a LEA in-house but a lower down grass roots in-house at the school, where it is needed..

 

Some of us have fantastic ICT departments and the school relies heavily on us to do many more jobs related to ICT than just supporting the network…

 

So I suggest that we should explore the idea of a School In-House ICT department with a LEA ICT consultant overseer to allay the fears of the BSF that the ICT might not be up to standard… but the school still keeps final say..

 

I mean how many schools want to become a foundation school so they don’t have to listen to the Council :twisted:

 

You can also speak about the costs of in-house to outsourced… a school 1200 students is £133,000.00 per year outsourced and no additional service's commited for 5 years to £70,000.00 in-house with full 24 hour service for all and everything…

 

The Consultant can also organise training courses for the ICT Support Staff and thus you have an investor in people and not just an investor in corporate fat cats...

 

 

Djanogly?!!

You've got to be kidding me. A school/academy that thinks its a good idea to have one teacher teaching over 100kids at a time, with other teachers 'supporting', they dont have desktops or laptops, just tablets, and also have glass walls so you can see through to the next classroom.

And it's a school that has failed on many things from what I've heard (one of our teachers went to work there).

 

Yea we have glass walls and doors.. the staff put cupboards in front of them and are complaining that they have no walls to put up shelving… Look brilliant on plans but again design over function… lot’s of money wasted..

[GrumbleDook]

Sorry for the delay in feeding back you you all about this.

 

Yes, we have an invite to the procurement review and Nick Batchelor has kindly agreed to go along as our representative (sorry folks, only one place available).

 

Nick was at the RM meeting, in a school going through the process at the moment and has been following things for quite a while (we first met at BETT 2006 at the ICT Register stand when he, and one of his SLT, where looking for ways to keep a level of independence but still get the most out of it all!)

 

I think he will do us proud.

 

(yes, I am triple booked that day but more info on that on Wednesday)

[Grommit]

I have heard that the ICT part might not be a tightly bound with the BSF Building Works ?

[GrumbleDook]

Is this info from 2 recent areas that have reached preferred bidder status by any chance?

[Grommit]

Is this info from 2 recent areas that have reached preferred bidder status by any chance?

 

I believe so... why so ?

[GrumbleDook]

PMed

[torledo]

That is great Grumbledook as you seem to be the most articulate one of us and therefore should get the point over in government speak…

 

My in-house idea is not for it to be a LEA in-house but a lower down grass roots in-house at the school, where it is needed..

 

Some of us have fantastic ICT departments and the school relies heavily on us to do many more jobs related to ICT than just supporting the network…

 

So I suggest that we should explore the idea of a School In-House ICT department with a LEA ICT consultant overseer to allay the fears of the BSF that the ICT might not be up to standard… but the school still keeps final say..

 

I mean how many schools want to become a foundation school so they don’t have to listen to the Council :twisted:

 

You can also speak about the costs of in-house to outsourced… a school 1200 students is £133,000.00 per year outsourced and no additional service's commited for 5 years to £70,000.00 in-house with full 24 hour service for all and everything…

 

The Consultant can also organise training courses for the ICT Support Staff and thus you have an investor in people and not just an investor in corporate fat cats...

 

 

Djanogly?!!

You've got to be kidding me. A school/academy that thinks its a good idea to have one teacher teaching over 100kids at a time, with other teachers 'supporting', they dont have desktops or laptops, just tablets, and also have glass walls so you can see through to the next classroom.

And it's a school that has failed on many things from what I've heard (one of our teachers went to work there).

 

Yea we have glass walls and doors.. the staff put cupboards in front of them and are complaining that they have no walls to put up shelving… Look brilliant on plans but again design over function… lot’s of money wasted..

 

The figures you are using relates to a single school. In a traditional outsourcing model where for instance a local authority has 'outsourced' it's IT in the name of business transformation the figures will cover all IT staffing and services across all departments - with existing staff under the management of the IT service provider. To calculate correctly 'in-house' vs 'outsourced' costs in a bsf environment you'd need to calculate the costs of IT 'inhouse' across all schools, primaries, clc's etc.

within the autohority. Plus you've got a centralised IT policy with authority wide SLA's and consistent standards which just don't exist at the moment.

 

With an ICT service provider offering many managed services the larger schools may have staff that are surplus to requirements - thus realising cash savings. In particular in the MIS and helpdesk staffing areas if schools have hired staff in the those areas. Also the need for a network manager on 30K+ a year salary is questionable when all infrastructure design, purchasing and strategic decisions can be carried out by the service providers senior technical leads. Obviously for da- to-day maintenance and troubleshooting you could have a good techician(s) on a lower salary scale liasing with the service providers staff and helpdesk when required. Most authorities have already offered a lot of managed services for a number of years to ease the burden on schools. Firewalls, web filtering, hosted email, E1 internet access, vpn's all stuff that the large authorities have provided - BSF ICT service providers are an extension of this managed solution - extending into other areas including hardware and software procurement and real-time monitoring, network design and 24/7 support basically whatever is negotiated in the SLA. I think it's going to be harder for some network managers to justify their large salaries with all these managed services - that tend to work smoothly if developed by a certified and experienced service provider (unisys are one example although not sure if they're bidding for bsf).

 

I think you need a stripped down in-house school ICT department - but they should be managed by the service provider - whether that be transferred over into the employment of the consortium or not. And do away with expensive school network managers all together. It's what corporations have been doing with very mixed success for several years.

[bossman]

@torledo:

 

I would agree with some of the facts you are quoting except there are no absolute facts to go off at the moment as BSF is quite a new experience for education so i will abstain from agreeing with you until then.

 

As for your attempt at putting your point over about overpaid NMs not being needed i think it does not hold water as most NMs do not earn above £20k it is also very unfriendly towards IT professionals i feel.

 

As you say a centralised external helpdesk from a managed service would appropriate the service better than an in house IT team, well ask the teacher who at 4.30pm realises that he/she needs (not requires) something for first thing in the morning finds that there is no flexibility built in to a managed system and it may take upwards of 2 - 4 day's to actually process her request (it has changed from needs to request via the managed services).

 

What if the above teacher doesn't realise until the next morning where will your managed service be then.

 

I ask you would it not be better for all if managed services and NMs worked together for the good of the schools, building in experience and flexibility or is this just another cost cutting exercise for education but which puts money into the coffers of large corporations and also into the pockets of others to which the taxpayer (NMs being some of them) have to fund.

 

We at this school have everything you have quoted and more about resources and how to access them and i feel most other schools have as well, I find your remarks quite derogatory to NMs as a whole and have no place amongst the IT profession which you obviously believe has no place in schools unless it is disguised as a managed service.

[broc]

@torledo:

 

You sound like you are reading from a Partnership for Schools script.....

 

I would not necessarily disagree with you either, if it related to a Corporate Enterprise motivated by shareholder profit and business efficiency. I have worked for a Global outsourcing company, and I have seen a few really good examples of how outsourcing has worked, but rather more bad examples where it has failed. The irony is many Corporate outsourcing clients are bringing services back in-house, having realised outsourcing has failed.

 

Don't forget we are dealing with schools here; staff in school rely very heavily upon ICT support staff being available and able to react in a flexible way to issues as they arise; If technology in the classroom is not available, lessons suffer. The time cannot easily be made up, and offering sweeteners to HTs, like managed service cost refunds if service levels are not met is no good to kids who have missed lessons because there is insufficient local support available.

 

Today, many schools have ICT staff who are seen as being part of a team, they take ownership of the problems that affect other members of their team. Bear in mind that many ICT staff also support primary schools, run clubs, assist in lessons, and a whole range of other activities to support teaching and learning.

 

A managed service will destroy this relationship and sense of ownership/participation. The schools will be 'serviced' by technicians who no longer feel part of their school, so morale and goodwill will inevitably suffer. Schools will get the level of service they pay for, not what they deserve.

[mrforgetful]

@torledo - rubbish. So rubbish I can't even be bothered to say anymore!

[bossman]

@Broc:

 

I totally agree with you and you put it so much better as i am just an NM with no idea of what a school needs that is why i have been asked by SLT if i will become the SLICT manager. I think this has something to do with the strategic leadership in ICT and would need special skills to appropriate (ohhh I wonder if I meet the criteria).

[mrforgetful]

Funnily enough we've just got a new person take on the Strategic Leadership of ICT, it's the Director of Sport.

 

Not sure how that works but there we go, I grow more and more.....something of this place daily.

[broc]

@bossman

 

There's no such thing as 'just an NM' ...... we are a breed apart

 

FYI I am a Network Manager too, maybe the difference is I have had more years of practice with weasly words while working in industry?

[bossman]

@Broc:

 

I have worked in industry as well 26 years but not in IT. As you already know we are a breed apart we have to be .

 

Thanks for the kind words it is well appreciated.