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

[pcstru]

Define done properly.

There is a tautological problem with the question sure (I mean if it is done properly then by definition it should not fail), but I'm interested in whether people think that outsourcing is always going to be a bad move and why. I kind of hope people will steer towards the intention of the question rather than get hung up on the tautological problems with the construction.

 

From my POV I think outsourcing can work well when you don't have a position that is full time, you need to access a broad pool of skills any of which might be in depth, and/or when you don't have management expertise to effectively manage those technical skills. However, the problem even then is the same one I think we face when using consultants to bring in particular expertise; how do I do quality assurance on the advice/recommendations they will give?

[localzuk]

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.

 

With the growth of MATs, school "Network Managers" as such will start disappearing. Instead, you'll see more specific titles, like Network Architect, Systems Admin etc... based simply on the fact that consolidation of services is inevitable, and that means more work for single roles. The jobs are still there, just in slightly different areas, much like in the corporate space. On the up-side, it means that education IT staff remuneration may well become comparable with corporate remuneration.

 

One thing to remember though - even with all the changes made to the LGPS, local government pensions and benefits (sick pay for example) are still on average much more generous than the private sector (well, unless you end up working for someone like Microsoft or Google).

 

So, whilst our take home salary may be less, the benefits we receive do help a bit to make up the difference. I know I feel a *lot* more comfortable with public sector employment knowing I have health issues that are only going to get worse than I would in the private sector.

[Dave_O]

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.

 

So to work out an IT Manager salary you look at historical data rather than look at the requirements of the post, interesting. Market rates as you define them are only useful if the job descriptions and roles are the same. In many schools they are not. What tends to happen is that schools look at "market rates" for an IT Manager define a role and vastly underestimate the skillset required to fulfil that post. They are then surprised at the lack of applicants. I have been involved in quite a number of IT Manager appointment many of which have to be re-advertised at a higher salary due to either disappointing numbers of applicant or applicant who do not have the relevant background or experience.

[pcstru]

So to work out an IT Manager salary you look at historical data rather than look at the requirements of the post, interesting.

No. The market rate should inform decision making for any instance of a post. It will be an important factor, it will not be the only factor.

Market rates as you define them are only useful if the job descriptions and roles are the same. In many schools they are not. What tends to happen is that schools look at "market rates" for an IT Manager define a role and vastly underestimate the skillset required to fulfil that post. They are then surprised at the lack of applicants.

Market rates inform the process. If you fail to take into account variations in what you are asking for, the local market or the actual local needs of an organisation, then you might well get it so wrong you do not get the quality of candidates you need and so have to re-advertise.

I have been involved in quite a number of IT Manager appointment many of which have to be re-advertised at a higher salary due to either disappointing numbers of applicant or applicant who do not have the relevant background or experience.

I make no claim that schools do not make mistakes in this area - even when they have the benefit of someone with many years experience to guide them.

[Ephelyon]

And, just to muddy the water here, we also have the fact that there is one defined market rate for the ever-dwindling LA schools: the results of their Council's job evaluation for these roles, be it through NJC or anything else.

 

What further muddies the water is that, although academies are technically free to ignore Single Status, they often tend to fall back on these rates anyway as they're unaware of how totally irrelevant they become when you take into account the fact that they only arrived at their conclusions because the pay grade had to be incorporated within the structure of the wider Local Authority and not just the individual organisation that is the school.

[mthomas08]

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.

 

Although I would agree, we are not the priority – Teachers are and always will be. This is however School based on how heavily reliance Teachers are on IT. If you are a School that can survive without IT for an hour e.g. Internet Loss then that would support what you said. If you are like us, we can’t even have the Printers offline for 5 minutes. Our Biometrics must be running all day – this ties in to Cashless Catering where they can actually lose hundreds every day (at least head of restaurant tells me).

If we lose our Internet, we lose our online text books, learning platform and SLG/Email which are used for Teaching and Learning (assigning work, performing online activities). If that fails they have to resort to printing copies (IT) or purchasing those books and that is £££ - not to mention the fact Students can access these systems at home. After all Schools no longer have a ton of spare cash to throw out the window anymore which is why we have resorted to money saving with online text books and not replacing real text books every year. Every £10,000 really does matter. And no I’m not here to debate how the Teacher chooses to Teach (electronic or not) – as you said we are here to provide the Support for their Teaching and Learning in regards to IT.

 

I think this discussion has popped up before, although a School may not lose £££ compared to a business. That money instead translates to grades/results – at least that’s what Head Teachers and Deputies have told me throughout the Years which I completely agree with. Although Teachers should always have a plan B, it doesn’t always work like that when they don’t have the time – at least that’s what tell me.

Some Schools don’t get me wrong will probably manage with the lack of IT but when our Staff have planned the next 6-12 months of their curriculum on IT usage, it does have a bigger impact if things don’t work.

 

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.

 

Although again you are right, there is positions available if the School chooses to create them or simply provides pay rises if they choose. There is not much difference between the title I have now, compared to say 5-7 Years ago. Although my pay is considerably different. At my last job some years ago, I remember getting a phone call from the HT late in the evening. He told me that he simply didn’t want to lose me and offered me a considerable pay rise for me to stay. In fact it still is the biggest jump I’ve had my entire life (about 70% if I remember). The School is very capable of doing it if they feel you are “worth it”. At the end of the day what it really comes down to is - A. Do they think you are worth it? B. Are they aware of the work you do?

 

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.

 

Not the only one who has friends in the private sector and I hear the other end of the story. Better pay, less stress, less unknown issues, barely any last minute jobs and able to plan projects which either get authorised or not and don’t get cancelled just because of 1 person. In fact they have and still do – try to persuade me to leave education. In fact only one would say he misses Educational work but only because he enjoys the face to face support.

 

BUT because I actually do enjoy my type of job, I don’t complain about it all day and know it’s my choice.

 

I would also add as for “Longer Holidays” I get the exact same 20 something days off a Year as those I know. Unless you are on Term Time only or on different contracts.

 

People don’t want the cake, they usually want appreciation and recognition.

Edited April 19, 2016 by mthomas08

[speckytecky]

Personally the only instances I have seen have helped the owner of the IT company massively enhance his and his family's lifestyle! As to the impact on the schools where in house IT has been lost the obvious downside is the loss of flexibility and a high chance they will be paying a lot more for possibly a much reduced service. On the other hand I guess there will be an upside in the fact that is very much dependant upon the quality of the team employed by the Company inasmuch as there's a fair chance they may well be more up to speed with current developments in this ever changing sphere.

 

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

[Ephelyon]

Although again you are right, there is positions available if the School chooses to create them or simply provides pay rises if they choose. There is not much difference between the title I have now, compared to say 5-7 Years ago. Although my pay is considerably different. At my last job some years ago, I remember getting a phone call from the HT late in the evening. He told me that he simply didn’t want to lose me and offered me a considerable pay rise for me to stay. In fact it still is the biggest jump I’ve had my entire life (about 70% if I remember). The School is very capable of doing it if they feel you are “worth it”. At the end of the day what it really comes down to is - A. Do they think you are worth it? B. Are they aware of the work you do?

 

I agree with much of what you say, but sadly this part isn't always true. It's true if you're not a Maintained School, or if you are but the LA has a role structure that allows it, but there are many that don't and the problem of not being able to up support staff pay to retain the decent ones is a very real one. It's what makes me so annoyed when so many academies come back with the whole thing of "we think it's best to just use LA-defined salaries - after all, they'll have set them for a reason". Yes, yes they will have set them for a reason - they had a pay structure with a top and a bottom and the impossible job of fitting in almost every kind of role under the sun but only a limited number of pay grades! :/

[Dave_O]

There is a tautological problem with the question sure (I mean if it is done properly then by definition it should not fail), but I'm interested in whether people think that outsourcing is always going to be a bad move and why. I kind of hope people will steer towards the intention of the question rather than get hung up on the tautological problems with the construction.

 

From my POV I think outsourcing can work well when you don't have a position that is full time, you need to access a broad pool of skills any of which might be in depth, and/or when you don't have management expertise to effectively manage those technical skills. However, the problem even then is the same one I think we face when using consultants to bring in particular expertise; how do I do quality assurance on the advice/recommendations they will give?

 

Tautological arguments aside, unlike a business, I don't think schools can define their IT needs clearly enough to enter into a full contract with agencies who, as eluded to in a previous post, have profit making at the top of their agenda. I know the contracts certainly in Sheffield were so bound up in legal and semantic niceties that it became a beast to be vanquised rather than to be embraced. It has cost the schools and LA dearly both financially and in terms of trust.

 

Schools are not experts in contract management. Also, as pointed out previously, requirements change over time frequently due to external pressures. I know this is part of the whole change management process but the volume of change for an organisation that is not driven by IT is just too overwhelming. Does this need to change? More than likely.

 

If pushed, I believe for outsourcing to succeed in schools, it has to be partial and spread over a long period of time. As an example, we have moved many things to O365, Goolge apps have a managed print service and will be investigating other IT contracted services over the next few years. Does that mean we don't use on site services? Certainly not. Many staff cling to their shared drive and home folders and insist on printing documents, but with guidance (and a lot of support) things are moving forwards. To outsource, schools need clearly identified need and a direction few schools have that level of clarity. At least with some expertise on site be that an "IT Manager", IT Architect", E-learning specialist" whatever, they have some chance of being steered appropriately. Does that need to be an IT mangager? Probably not. Will outsourcing succeed? I believe only on a partial basis.

 

You ask "how does one quality assure advice?" - 1) By talking to one's peers. (connectivism) 2) Visiting other school. 3) Following relevant IT developments 4) Creating a penalty based contract with the supplier of the advice. 5) Defining your requirements clearly. I half jest but history is littered with IT contracts and solutions that have suffered from bad advice. You only have to look at the medical profession and the government to see that. I have moved through the last 10 years ignoring many initiatives and embracing others. Why have I chosen particular ones? You know I'm not that sure, possibly big names like MS and Google as they will persist (we hope). To be honest if you can do 5) you will probably be able to answer the question yourself.

[mthomas08]

I agree with much of what you say, but sadly this part isn't always true. It's true if you're not a Maintained School, or if you are but the LA has a role structure that allows it, but there are many that don't and the problem of not being able to up support staff pay to retain the decent ones is a very real one. It's what makes me so annoyed when so many academies come back with the whole thing of "we think it's best to just use LA-defined salaries - after all, they'll have set them for a reason". Yes, yes they will have set them for a reason - they had a pay structure with a top and a bottom and the impossible job of fitting in almost every kind of role under the sun but only a limited number of pay grades! :/

 

We was LA controlled much like most Schools at the time (before Academies came around). Even as an Academy which has adopted that "LA" process, those in charge if they choose to can effectively grant you a pay rise. Depending on how much Dictatorship? Control? The SLT/HT have over the Governors. The decision made for me at the time didn't even go through the normal process of SLT > Governors etc - it was simply made by the HT.

 

It's a bit touchy and edgy in my view, some Schools stick to the "Chain of Command" but others the HT can choose to do as he/she wishes. Some Schools will even use the Governors to say no, even though it's not gone through them.

 

Think the point I am trying to make is if they want to, they can give you more money with little to no trouble. The main issue is sometimes they simply don't think you are worth it, don't have the budget or perhaps they don't know what you do.

 

It's pretty simple to revise a job description, job title and pay for a member of Staff. There's not exactly a cap for Support Staff in place stopping everyone from being paid above 19K. At the end of the day if they were desperate to keep some one, they can do it.

 

Although yes I do understand this isn't every School or every type of School. I would be surprised if the majority of Schools were simply not able to provide pay rises easier enough.

Edited April 20, 2016 by mthomas08

[Ephelyon]

I know foundation schools could do it as the employer is technically the Governors, but in a strictly LA-maintained school, they're not permitted and County HR would (should?) have raised the alarm. It may be that your school had "reached an understanding" with the LA, but that's highly atypical - not that I don't approve of course!

 

Your LA might also be on top of its job evaluation, which isn't all that typical either (though there is regional variation). Here, the accepted process is that writing, scoring and evaluating a new job spec takes at least 3 months, which is why so many schools in this area just don't bother and try to squeeze people into the existing specs, many of which are now approaching a decade old and haven't been revised in any way since then.

 

It's true that the majority of schools - since academisation - are now able to pay more (although that really wasn't the case in a practical sense prior to academisation unless you had foundation or VA status), but there are now two problems with that:

 

1) They believe the LA's job evaluation was fine anyway

or

2) They know perfectly well they now have more freedom but pretend they don't - some foundation schools used to do that anyway though!

 

The other well-known trick was to use a job spec that had been evaluated higher and was technically within the same domain (e.g. school IT) but didn't actually match what the job-holder did at all. That meant they could have the pay rise but also meant they could come unstuck if advised by their union to "work to rule", as they couldn't follow their job spec.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Ephelyon