IT in education Kitemark?

[GrumbleDook]

I have had this conversation a few times with a variety of people and with quite a mix of answers.

 

I know that some could say that BSF removes the need for all of this, but many of us are years away from BSF or are getting involved in different things (academies, etc).

[Vegas]

We've got it

[tech_guy]

Yes we have too (the IT Mark) & it aint worth the piece of laminated plastic it's screenprinted on.....

[john]

I will say that yes its a nice idea and shows that we are worth the weight in gold to them, but everyones different so may be a bit hard to standardise.

[MkII]

If my opinion was heeded we'd already be on the road to this. Unfortunately, as with the vast majority of us, I don't have the authority of my responsibilities.

 

(and I wan't that carved into my epitath when I leave next month! )

[GrumbleDook]

Hmm ... a quick change in the subject title needed.

 

An IT in Education kitemark ... not the ICT Mark (which relies on leadership and management based around educational language and needs without reference to good practices for technologies used or available)!!!

[MkII]

Ah rite - even better then!

[acrobson]

Isn't that what BSF is all about, one standard across the whole, then we each build upon that to adapt to our requirements. At least, thats what i have been told!

[kingswood]

Hmm ... a quick change in the subject title needed.

 

An IT in Education kitemark ... not the ICT Mark (which relies on leadership and management based around educational language and needs without reference to good practices for technologies used or available)!!!

 

Who would define the criteria for this mark Tony? What standards would a school have to match to get it etc?

 

Paul

[GrumbleDook]

@Paul

 

Aha ... I was wondering when someone would ask the important question!

 

What exactly would be the criteria?

 

Some common sense that it should be what most of us call 'best practice', which stems from existing criteria ... MS certification, A+, N+, ITIL, FITS, Technical and Functional IT Infrastructure documentation from Becta, Apple certification, Sun ...

 

I suppose the biggest chunk of the criteria would always get classified as being 'fit for purpose' ... and this is where it varies from school to school ...

 

Now that someone has spotted the leading question we get onto the next part of the poll (and please keep voting if you haven't already, I wll put up a reply poll after the conference for people to vote again if their view has changed).

 

Best practice for design, deployment / implementation, maintenance and review is generally derived from the manufacturer (MS, Apple, Cisco, Sun) and there are regarded industry standards such as ITIL ...

 

Can you summarise into 4 points the important areas that you think would require assessing to get such a kitemark?

[mattx]

I can't see the point - someone show me a SMT team that understands IT !!

Thats not their job - its the Network Managers & the Technicians to meet the IT requirements of the school and to ensure its smooth running.

If they can't do that - then get rid of them and employ someone who can.

[GrumbleDook]

But SMTs are held accountable for what goes on in a school ... that is what OFSTED is there for. For Bursars / Business Managers there is the Financial Management Standards in Schools ... there is nothing there to show accountability for us and to show that we are making a difference.

 

How does a school know that the IT is running smoothly? Is it cost effective? Are the problems that arise due to lack of training for support staff, lack of funding, political decisions by people further up the chain, educational needs overiding security of legal requirements?

[GrumbleDook]

Isn't that what BSF is all about, one standard across the whole, then we each build upon that to adapt to our requirements. At least, thats what i have been told!

 

As I said ... BSF does not affect everyone right now ... we are at least 5 years away ... if not longer ... and those in academies may also stand outside of BSF.

 

Do we use what has happened in BSF areas as the standards we should be reaching for?

[webman]

If we get a pay rise surely it's only a good thing ...

[mattx]

How does a school know that the IT is running smoothly? Is it cost effective?

 

Not sure about other schools, but in the school which I am a LEA gov of - we each have a subject in which we all have a connection with.

Because of my skills in IT I have the role of making sure the IT side of the school is up to scratch etc.

By talking to teachers, pupils, non teaching staff etc about the IT in the school you tend to get a good overall picture. I don't think an outside source who I would imagine would not know the school or its staff and pupils from Adam would be a good idea.

In fact I would say it would be a waste of money [ if paid for ] and also quite a negative approach. Teachers, heads and schools in general are tested too much in my opinion, they constantly have authorities looking over them. Of course you need some basis of this but yet another bunch of people walking around with clipboards ticking boxes ? I think the schools could do without it.

Let them get on with Teaching.

[Oops_my_bad]

If we get a pay rise surely it's only a good thing ...

Good to see someone looking at the wider picture

[bossman]

@Grumbledook:

As most headteachers are around the £100k salary surely one of their key roles is to equipe the school with the best people for the job. So why are we saying we need to standardise surely it is the remit of the headteacher and the governors of the school to ascertain if it is fit for purpose?

If say for instance that we were proven to make a dramatic improvment in a schools teaching and learning enviroment to such an extent that their marks improve the position of the school within the county and national figures then would they then be paid the same as the other professionals within the school. I don't think so personally.

Schools get what they pay for and in some cases it is their own fault that they get people who do not fill a certain criteria as they expect so much for so little reimbursment. Some schools expect a professional job but only pay the salary of a junior.

What would be the point of a national kitemark as it probably wouldnt be worth a jot.

[localzuk]

Well as far as I can see, there are lots of schools that do not provide enough ICT resources and as such are falling short of the requirements. An external audit could help fix that.

 

It would also help point out areas where things could be improved, simply due to the NM's not knowing about things.

 

I think it would help a fair bit.

[GrumbleDook]

@Grumbledook:

As most headteachers are around the £100k salary surely one of their key roles is to equipe the school with the best people for the job. So why are we saying we need to standardise surely it is the remit of the headteacher and the governors of the school to ascertain if it is fit for purpose?

If say for instance that we were proven to make a dramatic improvment in a schools teaching and learning enviroment to such an extent that their marks improve the position of the school within the county and national figures then would they then be paid the same as the other professionals within the school. I don't think so personally.

Schools get what they pay for and in some cases it is their own fault that they get people who do not fill a certain criteria as they expect so much for so little reimbursment. Some schools expect a professional job but only pay the salary of a junior.

What would be the point of a national kitemark as it probably wouldnt be worth a jot.

 

@bossman

 

Playing Devil's Advocate a little here ... we have already had Mattx (and I am sure he isn't the only one to feel this way) say that SMT know bugger all about IT and so they should rely completely on the people to employ to do the job. You explain why that this is the case ....

 

But Becta / DCSF / SSAT / other acronym based organisations admit that there is a varied standard in IT and use of IT in schools. This is why monies for IT and ICT is being rolled into BSF ... raise the baseline standard in schools.

 

How does a school know they have good IT and a fantastic support team?

 

If the SMT know bugger all about IT then are they the best people to say we are doing a good job? As I mentioned previously, IT projects will often fail due to circumstances outside of the NM's control ... sometime politics, sometimes funding, sometimes being overruled on an 'educational needs' basis ... how can we factor that in?

[webman]

In a way I agree with bossman and Tony - from the point of view that not all Network Managers, IT teams and IT infrastructure are up to scratch - and as SMT may know bugger all - how would they identify they need better IT provision?

 

But what guarantee is there that the body behind the Kitemark are any better? Like everything else they'll end up being full of ex-teachers who think they know a thing or two; or 'partnered' by companies who may have a vested interest in pushing their solutions in school IT, e.g. microsoft.

[bossman]

@Grumbledook:

 

I agree that schools need a baseline to work from but i think you will concede that not all schools have the same funding, backing from SLT etc etc and therefore how do you move ahead with an external audit.

 

What if a school thinks that it is doing great with it's IT and is quite content only to find that some external source has denounced it's IT as "wanting" to coin a phrase.

 

It has been my experience that schools use the educational bodies to their own needs when it suits them i.e. Becta is a prime example and to quote just one of their examples: If you have a manned helpdesk in place you will need one technician to every 100 workstations and if you don't have a manned helpdesk then you will need a technician for every 50 workstations. when we pointed this out to SLT we were told that they only use BECTA as a guideline and not to take it too seriously.

 

So what are we to derive from this?

[MkII]

As Job evaluation is all about standardisation of pay, and to me that's a good thing - the end of dictatorial rule by HTs, which lead to vastly varying standards in those things in schools that HTs get to decide - like Support workers pay. HTs and teachers get standard pay so why shouldn't we...

 

..so there should be some standardisation in the services provided. Isn't that what OFSTED( ESTYN in Wales) is all about?

 

Personally I welcome any sort of audit - wether a standard to check against ourselves or outsiders coming in. In an ideal world is would be a respected authority on the subject that would offer support to schools, but I think I'm dreaming

[mattx]

Playing Devil's Advocate a little here ... we have already had Mattx (and I am sure he isn't the only one to feel this way) say that SMT know bugger all about IT and so they should rely completely on the people to employ to do the job. You explain why that this is the case ....

 

But Becta / DCSF / SSAT / other acronym based organisations admit that there is a varied standard in IT and use of IT in schools. This is why monies for IT and ICT is being rolled into BSF ... raise the baseline standard in schools.

 

How does a school know they have good IT and a fantastic support team?

 

If the SMT know bugger all about IT then are they the best people to say we are doing a good job? As I mentioned previously, IT projects will often fail due to circumstances outside of the NM's control ... sometime politics, sometimes funding, sometimes being overruled on an 'educational needs' basis ... how can we factor that in?

 

I refer the right hon gentlemen to the comments I made some moments ago :-)

 

Not sure about other schools, but in the school which I am a LEA gov of - we each have a subject in which we all have a connection with.

Because of my skills in IT I have the role of making sure the IT side of the school is up to scratch etc.

By talking to teachers, pupils, non teaching staff etc about the IT in the school you tend to get a good overall picture. I don't think an outside source who I would imagine would not know the school or its staff and pupils from Adam would be a good idea.

In fact I would say it would be a waste of money [ if paid for ] and also quite a negative approach. Teachers, heads and schools in general are tested too much in my opinion, they constantly have authorities looking over them. Of course you need some basis of this but yet another bunch of people walking around with clipboards ticking boxes ? I think the schools could do without it.

Let them get on with Teaching.

[broc]

Ofsted is asking schools to carry out more and more 'self-assessment', with Ofsted inspections more often than not scrutinizing the schools self assessment documentation with spot-checks being made to ensure the documentation is telling the truth. The ICT elements of this process are rather lightweight compared to those covering teaching & learning, or financial management.

 

Under normal circumstances I would have supported the idea of an education Kitemark to demonstrate that the school & its staff have reached a level of attainment, but with BSF and managed services hanging over most schools I believe the focus for ICT standards instead should be directed towards training SMT & Governors in the art of setting and agreeing service levels, ensuring robust monitoring & reporting is in place so that schools can judge what level of ICT service they receive. If necessary this monitoring and reporting could be performed by an outside agency to ensure impartiality.

 

I think this is far more important in ensuring schools get the level of ICT service they need. I could see a Kitemark having a limited shelf-life, I seriously wonder how much attention private ICT suppliers bidding for/delivering managed services would pay to them, or ensure their staff were 'qualified' ? I suspect they would pay lip service to the Kitemark during the bidding phase, and quietly drop it during the delivery phase.

 

ICT service levels are going to be a crucial part of life post-BSF, like them or not.

[MkII]

Tech qualifications are a benchmark - all schools should have serious training and qualification provision for their techs if they want to assure standards