BSF - or outsourcing by another name

[u8dmtm]

In my experience, at least for secondary schools LEA support is a bad thing. Most schools in our area have moved away from LEA support, especially for curriculum side issues because:

 

- Centralised LEA support is inflexible and slow

- Centralised LEA support staff don't understand or have the authority to respond to the individual needs of a given school

- A one size fits all approach to equipment and setup is attempted and then fails to deliver to any schools needs.

 

Going back to LEA controlled IT provision would be a disaster for schools - something most schools in our area would hate because they are reaping the rewards of doing things for themselves:

 

- Better equipment, cheaper and based on the needs of the school

- Better, on-site support that understands school needs and works for the school not for some faceless SLA manager.

- You can employ a team of highly skilled support staff at a school for less than the cost of full SLA cover.

- Servers should be on-site

 

The whole idea of outsourcing IT from schools to either LEA or private enterprise is ridiculous anyway - think how much money is being put into paying profits and setting up these arrangements which could instead by spent on upgrading school infrastrucutre directly.

[Thomas]

Surely the reality of outsourcing won’t be that support staff are needed to perform the invaluable role of developing the use of IT within the school. The provision of IT will essentially be proscribed by the government (well, its QUANGOs) via its appointment of external organisations to oversee its deployment. To be honest, I think it’s pie in the sky thinking to assume that our roles in a school will be invaluable and we’ll all end up on SLT. In reality we’ll likely have no more choice about how to use IT equipment in the curriculum than we have a real choice over whether or not to use SIMS. All that will be needed in a school is a low-paid support staff worker who fixes simple problems and points out where the new computers, IWBs and network equipment are to be installed when the workmen turn up. I already know of one large secondary school where this is essentially the case. The role of the on-site IT support is basically to order printer consumables and report faults, and presumably to turn up at a teacher or pupil’s desk for basic technical support.

 

If, as school IT support and development staff we really want to keep our jobs as they are – i.e. In an advisory and developmental capacity - we need to affirm our successes. Stories about school servers going down for 2 weeks are absurd and the result of an obscene lack of professionalism. We need to counter these minority cases with a highly professional attitude. I honestly think that proscribed IT systems delivered by large, faceless entities are not the way forward. Innovation will suffer as a result. I think good IT development staff in a school are invaluable

 

The question is “how can we make ourselves appear more professional”? Clubbing together to create a united image via this site is a superb idea. However, I think a change of site name would be a good start. I don’t think “Edugeek” really does us any favours. In fact, maybe I’m in a minority, but I’d actually be embarrassed to tell any members of staff in school how invaluable the “Edugeek” site is! . Without wishing to cause offence, I think we need to look a little more professional. That’s not to say that the people who post here are not professional….merely to point out that the name, the devil’s horns and the silly avatars don’t create a good public image, fun though they are.

[Dos_Box]

I don’t think “Edugeek” really does us any favours. In fact, maybe I’m in a minority, but I’d actually be embarrassed to tell any members of staff in school how invaluable the “Edugeek” site is! . Without wishing to cause offence, I think we need to look a little more professional. That’s not to say that the people who post here are not professional….merely to point out that the name, the devil’s horns and the silly avatars don’t create a good public image, fun though they are.

 

I would beg to differ there. We are mentioned and talked of far and wide and in some quite high places too. When I chose the name I did so because it was impersonal and approchable, just as we need to be. At the moment I feel there are already far to many 'professional' bodies and standards all competing to make perople 'certified' to whateverlevel they claim is the best whilst asking them to part with money for the privilege. Calling ourselves something like 'The Association of British Educational IT Professionals' would instantly slam lots of doors in our face and make us seem unreachable to the very people who need our help. Besides we are know a know 'brand'. Just try Googling for us and see the results. We are not going to throw that away. Marathon, Snickers anyone?

 

P.S. My view od BSF is one of an open mind, althought I do thnk that it will be similar to the regional grids for learning scheme. Some grids are good, some excellent, and some steaming piles of dog cack.I think BSF will be no different. It all depends on how good the LEA's IT people who read and sign the contracts are.

[Thomas]

I would beg to differ there. We are mentioned and talked of far and wide and in some quite high places too. When I chose the name I did so because it was impersonal and approchable.

 

Well, naturally, it makes people here sound like geeks which is an image that the IT industry has spent years trying to shake off. Personally, I don't want to be "humoured". All I can say is that when I have mentioned the name "edugeek" to people, they've sniggered in an "oh dear" kind of way. And that's not because I've provoked that kind of response.

 

just as we need to be. At the moment I feel there are already far to many 'professional' bodies and standards all competing to make perople 'certified' to whateverlevel

 

Yes, that's possibly true, but not wanting to be labelled as a "geek" in a comedy way doesn't necessarily mean you want to create another "professional" body with various qualifications and subscription fees. There is a middle way I'm sure.

 

I don't want to detract from the idea behind site at all, I think it's a brilliant idea and in fact it's something I was looking into setting up myself before this site came along. I just really don't like the "geek" thing. Whether I want to be associated with this site or not, I feel the name and initial impression is portraying my chosen profession in a bad light. Getting a mention in high places is not the same as getting respect in high places. Sorry to be negative....

[Ric_]

@Thomas: Don't mention the name to people if you don't like it... I think that the impersonal view that it portrays is vital to the success of the site.

[Thomas]

I wouldn't care about the name if it wasn't for the reaction that I've seen the name provoke.

 

What about a poll on whether people want this name, or one that doesn't contain the word "geek".

 

Are you sure you mean "impersonal"?

[russdev]

to be honest name change is a very bad idea in my view as said the edugeek.net is now a brand and very well known brand and has high regard in many circles....

 

i my view you would need a really good reason to change it and at this stage i think anychange to name woudl kill the work that has gone on so far and about to go on

 

In releation to logo to certain degree that is one thing can change and not have to much effect on 'marketing' of the site as as logo but then again you need a good reason...

 

what people forget is we are a brand and so an change have to look at benafits vers the disadvantages

 

and as for sniggers at name do what i do educate them they soon take a step back when they reliase how big the the site and org is....

 

russ

[u8dmtm]

Yes they do mean personal rather than impersonal but semantics asside the issue remains and if EduGeek is to be useful in promoting the valid views of its members then its members should stop worrying about what it is called and start thinking about how they can contribute. If an EduGeek spokesperson was ever approached by the media - which is what is needed to get the issues promoted then the press would probably not be interested in the name anyway (e.g. 'an Edugeek spokesman, which represents IT professionals in education said .....)

 

I think a set of stated key aims would be a good starting place.

[Thomas]

to be honest name change is a very bad idea in my view as said the edugeek.net is now a brand and very well known brand and has high regard in many circles....

 

Just out of interest, which circles are these?

 

To be honest, if this group now has that much pull then simply putting out a press release saying "edugeek will now be known as" would actually be good publicity.

 

and as for sniggers at name do what i do educate them they soon take a step back when they reliase how big the the site and org is....

 

Or perhaps they make the assumption that IT support in education is controlled by an enormous group of geeks. I think that probably works both ways. 8O

 

Next thing you know, you'll be producing obnoxious loud ties (the type that stereotypical geeks wear) with the Edugeek logo on them...oh man......

[GrumbleDook]

"What shall we do tonight, Brain?"

 

Same thing we do every night, Pinky! Try to take over the *world*!!!"

 

 

erm ... I take it that this is not the key aim then?

 

My response to this thread will appear later, but can be summed up simply.

 

We are a group of professionals that seek to help schools and institutes get the most of of the money that is invested in ICT in schools, through best practise and sharing of information; and also help schools via activities which will give the most impact on Learning & Teaching through ICT.

[ChrisH]

Theres a site called edugeeks.com as well formed by ..... Retired teachers so if a person of retirement age who will have taught for many years thinks this kind of name is ok then I would say the majority of people would think that too

 

Edugeeks was founded by retired certified teachers who want to continue helping students learn.

[Thomas]

Retired American teachers..... not really a worthwhile comparison?

[ChrisH]

Well I doubt there will be any persuading you no matter what we say so I wont try. Edugeek is Edugeek and it is here to stay

[Thomas]

No, really, I'm open to persuasion....I've just not seen anything particularly persuasive yet

[russdev]

to be honest name change is a very bad idea in my view as said the edugeek.net is now a brand and very well known brand and has high regard in many circles....

 

Just out of interest, which circles are these?

 

 

 

sst,becta, dfes, unions, fe/he, leas to name a few...

 

 

To be honest, if this group now has that much pull then simply putting out a press release saying "edugeek will now be known as" would actually be good publicity.

 

yer but we have not that much sway but if we change name we have t work at it again db example is best snickers made massive mistake when they renamed marathon as it was brand people assoicated with and then they changed it to snickers so that it matched global brand but people had hard time accepting it...

 

and as for sniggers at name do what i do educate them they soon take a step back when they reliase how big the the site and org is....

 

 

Or perhaps they make the assumption that IT support in education is controlled by an enormous group of geeks. I think that probably works both ways. 8O

 

Next thing you know, you'll be producing obnoxious loud ties (the type that stereotypical geeks wear) with the Edugeek logo on them...oh man......

 

lol

 

Russ

[GrumbleDook]

I remember a long-into-the-night conversation with some friends whilst sat round a camp fire and we were discussing geeks and nerds.

 

I had dropped into a groupd of people who would compliment you on IRC by saying "nice bit of geeking there" when you had described something rather technical to another less technical person.

 

It was a mark of respect and when we tried to sum it all up it boiled down to a Geek is a nerd with social skills, a person with technical knowledge and expertise that is respected by peers and friends ... and deserves the capitalisation to differentiate from the person who has "you geek" hurled at them as in insult .. usually by some luser who thinks IT is all about clicking, double-clicking and reading emails.

 

I was recently pointed to this page which gives a good description too.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/19279/definitions_of_geeks_dorks_and_nerds.html

 

Basically ... a Geek is someone who has technical knowledge and expertise that may be very specific and should be reveered for it ... and EduGeek is a Geek that works in education.

 

There are alternative URLs that we could use as a front for the site, but why bother ... the name of the site brings a wry smile to fellow NMs and Techies, and if I am with serious people with no sense of humour then I usually say that I am a staff member of one of the largest peer support groups of Network Managers and Technicians.

 

If the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust can smile at it and appreciate the emphasis then pretty much anyone can.

[Thomas]

I've seen a whole host of explanations of the word geek. There's a fair few here:-

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=geek

 

I'm really of the opinion that it's still widely used by those outside of IT as a term of derision.

 

But, if you're sticking with the name, fair enough. I can see your reasons for that. There's not much else I can say.

[Dos_Box]

Yes they do mean personal rather than impersonal but semantics asside the issue remains and if EduGeek is to be useful in promoting the valid views of its members then its members should stop worrying about what it is called and start thinking about how they can contribute. If an EduGeek spokesperson was ever approached by the media - which is what is needed to get the issues promoted then the press would probably not be interested in the name anyway (e.g. 'an Edugeek spokesman, which represents IT professionals in education said .....)

 

I think a set of stated key aims would be a good starting place.

 

Exactly. Look at the Army RumouR Service (ARRSE!). They are mentioned in the media almost daily now, with no sniggering whatsoever.

[russdev]

Yes they do mean personal rather than impersonal but semantics asside the issue remains and if EduGeek is to be useful in promoting the valid views of its members then its members should stop worrying about what it is called and start thinking about how they can contribute. If an EduGeek spokesperson was ever approached by the media - which is what is needed to get the issues promoted then the press would probably not be interested in the name anyway (e.g. 'an Edugeek spokesman, which represents IT professionals in education said .....)

 

I think a set of stated key aims would be a good starting place.

 

on that note i am starting to do media stuff and should be going live with new media are bascily one place for all those journos to found information.

 

One of things i want is to get more and more journalists to use us more one way of doing that is by getting s searchable list together of people willing to talk and what they are willing to talk about...

 

Also to encourage journalists to add us to there contact list (started that as we should be appearing in journalists contacts database used by many local rag journalists...

 

Also remember we have edugeek bulletin where we can issue statements on national and local issues and so please if there is something that we should be commenting on then please let us know...

 

russ

[broc]

I share some of the concerns expressed about the 'geek' in the title of the site, however I feel the benefits to be gained from the collaboration and open honest discussion and information the site facilitates outways the slight discomfort felt admitting I associate with other 'geeks!

 

I do want to return to discussing the technical aspects of outsourcing servers. The case for consolidating servers to a central managed operation seems to be based upon the unfounded & uncosted statement that managing ICT infrastructure is not a schools 'core business' and they should leave it to the 'professionals', an argument I find particularly offensive, having spent more than 30 years as an IT professional in industry before being recruited to my school to bring it some industrial strength experience.

I am also Chair of Governors at a nearby Secondary school, having been a governor for more than 12 years during which time I have worked closely with the schools ICT department so I have a reasonable level of knowledge of school ICT provision .

 

However, to defend the 'status quo' and argue for schools to manage and develop their own ICT infrastructure we cannot simply rely upon statements about how poor LEA support has been in the past/is at present; I need strong technical arguments to back up the 'instinct' that it is not a good idea otherwise we may be simply dismissed for protecting our own 'empires'.

 

When I worked for 'Big Blue', we had some simple data rules as far as server consolidation was concerned; the two most important were to maintain a single copy if at all possible, and to keep active data close to the user. This model works well in business, where corporate data is kept on centralised corporate servers, with branch office servers storing branch data, and client workstations storing end user data. But, as WE are all too aware, schools aren't like that. There is little or no corporate data; a fair bit of branch data (Admin stuff), but the vast majority of data belongs to end users (mainly students) and this cannot/should not be located on client workstations.

 

Based upon these rules server consolidation is not a good fit for schools.

 

If we look at bandwidth requirements:

 

At my school we have 400 PCs each of which has a 100mbit network connection to a switch; these switches are connected via copper/fibre gbit to a 24 port gbit 'backbone' switch that also has multiple servers with native gbit NICs. If I move the servers 30km away, how much bandwidth would I need to maintain the response times for loading/saving files? The answer may not be clear-cut, however I believe a significant increase in bandwidth will be required from the typical 10mb-100mb broadband links schools have today.

 

In any case, why would you locate a caching proxy server 30km away from your users? If a student retrieves a page from the www, what point is there in caching it if the 29 other users in his class all have the 30km link to negotiate to retrieve it themselves?

 

What about imaging/reimaging workstations? Most schools use tools such as WSUS, RIS, Ghost etc to maintain software images on client PCs. Imagine the network traffic to support this?

 

I need some more rational technical arguments to head off this ill-conceived idea.

 

Brian

[TechMonkey]

On the issue of name, flip it round to the question what else would work? I think the name covers a multitude of sins, where anything else may limit who may come along. EduTechs, may make NM's think it was just for Technicians, EduNetworks may make the web designers and programmers think twice about coming over etc etc. I suppose it entirely depends on the personal view of the word Geek, I have never had a problem being called it & if anyone tries to use it derogatorily towards me I thank them with a smile Confuses the hell out of them.

 

Back on topic I think, as someone else mentioned, that it woudl get to unweildy and down the line it would be broken down or schools would be forced to go their own way. When I think back to the world of pain that was the whole Broadband take up, imagine the chaos for an OS upgrade, or any other system change. Plus a one size fits all would not work across all the schools in the areas as many are diverse.

 

From a personal point of view over being a roving tech for the LEA if I was assimilated to County, having a change to visit other schools may be nice but you would be like the contract engineers you get turning up from time to time. Trying to cadge up on notes about the system, what is wrong and case history rather than able to recall it all from memory as I bet most of manage at the moment. You definitley wouldn't get the raport with staff so get how they work and interact with the systems, not having the interaction with the kids would be a loss and I think staff usage of IT would suffer as they see it as a huge benefit to have someone they know to ask the silly (in their eyes) questions.

[russdev]

Had interesting talk with my union women yesterday (please contact yours to discuss your local situation)

 

I understand it under various rules and regs no one can be made redundent from bsf yes said company could take your contract on and then make you redundent little bit later...

 

But not matter what happens your length of service with local authority transfer, as well as your pay etc in fact the company taking your contract on can not pay less then what same person doing same job at company already gets.

 

so so a company took your contract on at said company they already have somone else doing same role who is on 5k more than you then they have to raise your wage inlines with them...

 

Also pension gets taken on by said company and must be same pension as lea pension scheme....

[SpuffMonkey]

Had interesting talk with my union women yesterday (please contact yours to discuss your local situation)

 

I understand it under various rules and regs no one can be made redundent from bsf yes said company could take your contract on and then make you redundent little bit later...

 

But not matter what happens your length of service with local authority transfer, as well as your pay etc in fact the company taking your contract on can not pay less then what same person doing same job at company already gets.

 

so so a company took your contract on at said company they already have somone else doing same role who is on 5k more than you then they have to raise your wage inlines with them...

 

Also pension gets taken on by said company and must be same pension as lea pension scheme....

 

Yeah - theres a thing at the moment where Capita made a load of people redundant straight after the TUPE. TUPE does not cover pensions (spot the person who's been through all this before) - which may not mean much to you striplings - but its a bit of a blow to us greybeards. Also - you are only taken across to a position that is "equivalent" to your current one - it could be anywhere working on any system - which again is more of a concern to those of us with kids/working partners an' all. Its not at all uncommon for TUPE'd staff who are not regarded as prime to be "redeployed" to an office in the back end of nowhere that acts as a swift deterrent to staying on.

[russdev]

your pension will get taken across this time as its lea based pension as such is protected...

 

as my understanding....

 

but this is where people need to start talking at local level found out who in your unions deals with education talk to them for example mine as said if anything comes in to do with bsf and any meetings she is going to invite me in (in some ways quite good as she is an ex-network manager before going to work for union)

 

russ

[broc]

Also bear in mind that the pensions on offer when an employee has been 'TUPE'd does NOT have to offer exactly the same benefits, and in any case these can be eroded/cancelled at the whim of the employer - just like the Local Government Pension Scheme which is under threat as we speak.

 

I also agree with SpuffMonkey, the terms and conditions of employment for TUPE are pretty much worthless to the employee as soon as you have been 'assimilated'. UK employment laws still make it remarkably easy to get rid of 'surplus' employees. If you look at the meagre costs associated with running ICT in schools (as evidenced by the budgets most people on this forum work with!), the only way an outsourcing company can make a profit from outsourcing ICT in a secondary school is to achieve economies of scale in equipment provision (marginal?), charge schools more, or reduce cost..... labour being a major part of that.

 

I also know of people who were outsourced, moved into dead-end roles, threatened with disciplinary action for complaining & even one who was eventually sacked for being a union activist. At an industrial tribunal he won a 6 figure sum.

 

As a matter of interest, has anyone seen a financial case for outsourcing school ICT? I have seen several statements which say it is a 'good' thing, but no indepth analysis of why, or any cost benefit analysis.