ICT Teachers finally find out what BSF means

[GrumbleDook]

Hmm, I don't know... how about making the mandatory ICT managed service less mandatory or entirely optional without loss of funding? Us on the front line will not get listened to by the people at the top because they know best (apparently).

 

Ok ... so that means that we have to come up with some sort of standard that schools should get themselves up to ... a set of measurable targets ...

 

The first things that will be said is that we need to show how we are accountable and what impact we have within the school.

 

Senior Leaders & Teachers have OFSTED, we have nothing ... nought ... zilch ... zero ... not a sausage ...

 

When I previously raised about companies that might come into schools to do this sort of measuring it was shot down.

 

Now ... would anyone seriously like to tell me that they think that we should keep our jobs, not have any one above us who understands what we are doing, not have any meaningful way of measuring what we do and we still get to dictate the environment that staff and students work in?

 

I will continue to argue that BSF has good *AND* bad points, but people have got to wake up and understand that we would have a better case if some of the above starts to get addresses.

 

I know jobs are on the line, I know that this is going to be a nightmare for some schools ... I also know that there are things that can be done to limit damage and to try and stop heads having to screw over their staff because they are getting steamrollered by the LA.

 

The Govt is not going to back down on a massively financed, vote-winning education rebuild just because network managers and technicians are going to be screwed over. This affects many site staff too ... but they have had their jobs pushed around for years ... why should we be treated any different?

[webman]

Ok ... so that means that we have to come up with some sort of standard that schools should get themselves up to ... a set of measurable targets ...

 

The first things that will be said is that we need to show how we are accountable and what impact we have within the school.

 

Senior Leaders & Teachers have OFSTED, we have nothing ... nought ... zilch ... zero ... not a sausage ...

 

No, we don't but it is something a lot of us would welcome. However I think it's now far too late in the day for anything on this scale to happen now and is unlikely to benefit us with BSF looming.

 

So how about we start with... between now and July (coursework time, amongst other things) - let's remove all ICT and Email access from staff and students, and see what effect this has on T&L, exam results, attendance and general day-to-day running of the school.

 

The Govt is not going to back down on a massively financed, vote-winning education rebuild just because network managers and technicians are going to be screwed over.

 

Exactly - so what is the point in trying to get our point across? This counter-argues your own point made a few posts ago in this same thread - "Come up with a better solution and people will listen."

[GrumbleDook]

No, we don't but it is something a lot of us would welcome. However I think it's now far too late in the day for anything on this scale to happen now and is unlikely to benefit us with BSF looming.

 

Again, there are loads of schools out there that are not affected yet and we need to learn for the good and bad ... at the moment mainly bad

 

The Govt is not going to back down on a massively financed, vote-winning education rebuild just because network managers and technicians are going to be screwed over.

Exactly - so what is the point in trying to get our point across? This counter-argues your own point made a few posts ago in this same thread - "Come up with a better solution and people will listen."

 

 

They will not back down ... they will not stop the scheme. They will, however, allow schools more freedom to decide want they want and what they need. From chatting with a variety of people in different groups a common complaint is that the last thing Govt wants is for LAs to have total control of what happens ... have people seen what happens with PFI in some LAs? No wonder they want to try a more prescriptive model. At the same time that are also doing a more bespoke and individual model ... it is called the Academies network.

 

I just want to add a quote from the TES forum, from NWLG.

...innovation is seen as an expensive luxury. Standardisation affordable.

[Grommit]

Come up with a better solution and people will listen.

 

 

As I mentioned before..

 

The LEA employs a Uber Consultant that will go around to each school and make sure that all the schools that opted out of the Managed Services are meeting certain levels ..

 

Take Lambeth... that is a RM managed Service Borogh.. yet half the schools opted out and the same reasons are the same ones that the BSF raises... (loss of control etc)

 

So make sure that a school has a standard to remain In-House ie FITS... and than the Uber Consultant can watch over them and advise them...

[iatkinson]

Think our place could be struggling for any IT support soon. We don't particularly want to be TUPED and as our recent job evaluations proposes cutting our wages to something we can't live off may not be here long. Of the three of us ones due to retire and the other two are looking elsewhere...considering what we do the school may be in for a shock well before BSF takes over.

[Diello]

As I mentioned before..

 

The LEA employs a Uber Consultant that will go around to each school and make sure that all the schools that opted out of the Managed Services are meeting certain levels ..

 

Take Lambeth... that is a RM managed Service Borogh.. yet half the schools opted out and the same reasons are the same ones that the BSF raises... (loss of control etc)

 

So make sure that a school has a standard to remain In-House ie FITS... and than the Uber Consultant can watch over them and advise them...

 

A simular idea to what I've been preaching about since this whole thing started.

 

Simply employ the system used in schools for teaching, to IT staff.

 

OfSTED - A group of chosen experts in their field (yes... I know what you're going to say... I agree... but lets go with the theory here!) go into the school and assess the standard of teaching - if it's baseline (as defined again by 'those in the know') or above, you're doing a good job, we'll leave you to it and come back later to check again. If you're below baseline, we'll put you in special measures and send in a "super team" to get you up to the baseline.

 

Simple - that way all schools are at worse baseline.

 

All that was ever needed was to employ a similar system for IT in schools. Apparently IT is so important that the Gov is making it part of BSF, so it must be important enough to get together a group of experience Network Managers, set a baseline, then send 1 or 2 of them in to schools with OfSTED, or seperately, either or. Still keep our day jobs, it'd just be a couple of sanctioned days out every term say. IT systems/staff get audited, if you're at the set baseline, or above it, you get left alone, if you're below the baseline, you get your IT system put in "special measures", say have a nominated school in every cluster as a "super IT school", which receives additional funding/staff to take on the additional work of the other school, take over that IT system, and bring it up to baseline or better.

 

As much as we hate to hear it, GD is right - BSF WILL be of bonus to a lot of schools - I've seen schools that have dire IT, that is harming the education of our future population, to whom BSF will be a godsend. I've also seen schools that offer better IT than BSF ever will, and to whom BSF will seriously set back IT.

 

Like a lot of things from this Gov - BSF is a good idea in theory, it's fatal flaw is that it's trying to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all approach, (whether because it's simply easier, or for the benefit of big business, is a question,) and that's simply not how it works.

 

BSF for IT is akin to OFSTED putting all schools in special measures regardless of whether they're a bad or a good school.

 

Luckily my head if quite knowledgeable in IT (no, seriously... not as a techie, but his head is screwed on) - and he HATES BSF as much as I do - knowing that his control of the facilities in his school are largely going to go down the pan.

 

Unfortunately there ARE good alternatives to BSF, that will work better, for the schools, for the kids, and for the staff - however, it doesn't serve the Govs interest - they'd much rather pile everyone into the same big pot, because it's easier really, isn't it...

Edited February 13, 2008 by Diello

[broc]

As I mentioned before..

 

The LEA employs a Uber Consultant that will go around to each school and make sure that all the schools that opted out of the Managed Services are meeting certain levels ..

 

Take Lambeth... that is a RM managed Service Borogh.. yet half the schools opted out and the same reasons are the same ones that the BSF raises... (loss of control etc)

 

So make sure that a school has a standard to remain In-House ie FITS... and than the Uber Consultant can watch over them and advise them...

 

I think a more likely scenario is where the LA manages to convince PfS they have the skills & resources to deliver the managed service in partnership with a private supply chain partner with the whole process being overseen by consultants from outside. This at least means the front-line delivery staff remain LA employees (employed centrally rather than by the school) and the delivery organisation does not have to show a profit for shareholders.

[GrumbleDook]

I think a more likely scenario is where the LA manages to convince PfS they have the skills & resources to deliver the managed service in partnership with a private supply chain partner with the whole process being overseen by consultants from outside. This at least means the front-line delivery staff remain LA employees (employed centrally rather than by the school) and the delivery organisation does not have to show a profit for shareholders.

 

I was under the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that this is what is happening in Newcastle. I also believe that the general response from schools was a giant scream of "Oh No! ... not that lot?!"

[Geoff]

I believe Lancashire/Cumbria are aiming to do the same (apart from Phase 1, Burnley, which is Redstone).

[Grommit]

I was under the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that this is what is happening in Newcastle. I also believe that the general response from schools was a giant scream of "Oh No! ... not that lot?!"

 

County and borough ICT Support have a very bad reputation..

 

Why cant we stay in House and have a LEA Uber Consultant make sure that the ICT is correct and up to the standards laid out by the BSF.

 

No we don't want to be controlled by the LEA and told what we can buy... if my Head wants that he gets it.. why should he have to jump through hoops ?

 

 

Maybe I am lucky that i have 700 PC's... 400 new and 300 oldish....

 

User the BSF i would have to dump the 300 oldish P4's with a gig of RAM and XP Pro SP2.. yet these PC's are working great and being supported..

 

I have a couple of servers older than 3 years... they are workig great.. yet I would have to dump them instead of adding to them..

 

This is where the BSF fails... there are lots of schools with perfectly working PC's/Apples and Servers that either won't be supported or has to be dumped.... just because it's over 3 years old..

 

Yet under my idea we add to the systems saving tens of thousands... and only replace when we have to and not have forced refresh..

Edited February 13, 2008 by Grommit

[broc]

I was under the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that this is what is happening in Newcastle. I also believe that the general response from schools was a giant scream of "Oh No! ... not that lot?!"

 

There may be some truth in what you say, I could not possibly comment

I don't work for Newcastle so I don't know how well things are proceeding there.

 

I believe Newcastle managed to get their proposal under the PfS radar at the very beginning of BSF, before PfS developed their 'rules' insisting the 'managed' service be provided exclusively by private companies. I think the pendulum is starting to swing back a bit. PfS will still make LAs jump through hoops before agreeing that in-house bids are permissible. LAs will have to convince PfS they have the resources & skills to make it work; the external consultants will be the 'gamekeepers' to keep the other partners on their toes.

 

Of course in this scenario, much of the resource & skills already 'owned' by the LA are the very same ICT support staff employed in schools......

[Heebeejeebee]

Senior Leaders & Teachers have OFSTED, we have nothing ... nought ... zilch ... zero ... not a sausage ...

 

You didn't get interviewed at your last OFSTED? I did and quite thoroughly as well!

 

HBJB

[Diello]

You didn't get interviewed at your last OFSTED? I did and quite thoroughly as well!

 

The IT systems themselves aren't part of OfSTED's remit. Some will chat to you, most won't even acknowledge your existence. I've experienced both - The most I ever got in a OfSTED report was "The standard of IT support in the school is excellent".

[Heebeejeebee]

The IT systems themselves aren't part of OfSTED's remit. Some will chat to you, most won't even acknowledge your existence. I've experienced both - The most I ever got in a OfSTED report was "The standard of IT support in the school is excellent".

 

Yeah - that's what we got. I'm convinced though that if it had not been so good we'd have been slated well and truly.

 

HBJB

[CyberNerd]

Why cant we stay in House and have a LEA Uber Consultant make sure that the ICT is correct and up to the standards laid out by the BSF.

 

It needs to be backed up with something other than advise. Betca currently advise schools, but plenty of NM's have little regard for the advise because they have their own skewed agenda.

 

There would need to be another set of targets with financial penalties for your idea to work. No doubt teaching unions would reject this as they are really fed up with targets already. I suspect OFSTED, as mostly ex-teachers, are hardly going to be qualified to judge technical specifications so a new breed of inspectors would be needed - probably above the LA level. This would be my preferred route.

The problem is that that the easiest way to enforce the rules is to centralise.

[broc]

It needs to be backed up with something other than advise. Betca currently advise schools, but plenty of NM's have little regard for the advise because they have their own skewed agenda.

 

It's not just NMs who have skewed agendas...... many HTs & school SMTs in the past have chosen to employ the ICT funding provided by HM Govt to satisfy their own 'pet' projects too, at the expense of the curriculum support.

 

As things stand, Schools and LAs (as well as NMs) freely pick & choose which advice to take from Becta; two pieces of advice regularly ignored that come to mind are the ratio of support staff to computers and the idea that wireless networks should complement wired networks, not replace them. It is clear even now that the thinking behind my schools ICT infrastructure post BSF will be almost entirely wireless based, a strategy endorsed by the School, LA, and PfS.

 

I am certain that is one of the key reasons why the Govt insisted the BSF managed service was mandatory was to ensure the BSF ICT funds get spent on raising standards and not providing everyone in SMT with state of the art laptops, PDAs or Blackberrys!

[Oops_my_bad]

The sooner we get rid of the lazy $hitbag techinicians who constantly mess us around, the better.

 

If this is how we do it, then fine.

 

ROFL priceless

[ITWombat]

Here's another quote from the same said Muppet.

 

Death to independantly Controlled ICT in Schools..

 

No more asking the ICT Staff to put a CD on the Server to have a cool an interesting lessson...

 

It will make BSF worth it just to see the look on his face when the managed service drones tell him how things really work.

[Grommit]

Here's another quote from the same said Muppet.

 

 

 

It will make BSF worth it just to see the look on his face when the managed service drones tell him how things really work.

 

 

I think that's what he was getting at.... The teachers will not be able to ask for a quick upload... the drones will have to ask Head office as they Can't access the Servers..

[spc-rocket]

Hi all,

 

Apologies if this already covered, but could it not be possible to excude the ICT side of things from the whole BSF project based on the descretion of the LA and the school being revamped? One possible way to do this would be to have the school rebuild as per BSF guidelines but then have consultants who talk to the relavent IT services people at the school/establishment and implement the changes that are required as a one off rather than streamlining this as managed services. I think this may an alternative as it gives the schools the chance to update/refresh the equipment and infrastructure and still get to keep the IT in-house which will be better in terms of support as the whole team (NMs, senior ICT techs, ICT tech etc) are based on-site.

 

Having said this i think NMs are schools should also realise that there may be some things suggested by the consultants (as per BSF) that they don't want implement but this could negotiated rather than just denying the changes recommended. I think there are lots of NMs who still goes on the analogy that is my network and you are not going to do this and that, well for a start its the school's network and if this kind of attitude is shown then the ICT services improvement will be delayed and flawed. I think the NMs should be more activily get involved in the BSF process and start to think about possible questions, recommendations to headteachers, the LA representatives.

 

Ash.

[conehead]

Hi all,

 

but could it not be possible to excude the ICT side of things from the whole BSF project based on the descretion of the LA and the school being revamped? One possible way to do this would be to have the school rebuild as per BSF guidelines but then have consultants who talk to the relavent IT services people at the school/establishment and implement the changes that are required as a one off rather than streamlining this as managed services. I think this may an alternative as it gives the schools the chance to update/refresh the equipment and infrastructure and still get to keep the IT in-house which will be better in terms of support as the whole team (NMs, senior ICT techs, ICT tech etc) are based on-site.

 

 

Ash.

 

Sorry I'm not actually answering your question, but taking it down a slightly different path, my question is could a LEA's schools and the existing LEA ICT department not align to provide a joined up managed service which meets the BSF requirements but retain existing flexibility/experience and maintains continuity of good provision?

 

Many schools already have broadband, filtering, SIMS and managment information services support through the LEA, who are not out to make profits for shareholders. Surely adding the desktop/ network support staff within the schools to the same "team" is preferable to giving over the budget to a third party whose bottom line in maximising the profit out of the money available.

 

So in essence, does anyone know if a LEA ICT department can be the allocated managed service provider under BSF edicts?

[conehead]

Here's another quote from the same said Muppet.

 

Death to independantly Controlled ICT in Schools..

 

No more asking the ICT Staff to put a CD on the Server to have a cool an interesting lessson...

 

The disparaging of technicians comment was from (johnbrown)

To be honest, I think you are mis-interpreting him/her (ICTStaff), I think they are saying teachers will lose the freedom after BSF to ask somebody to quickly stick a new CD on the system. I agree it doesn't read that way at first, but given that the poster started the thread on TES with a warning that BSF would destroy current ICT autonomy within a school it makes more sense I think?

Edited February 18, 2008 by GrumbleDook

[localzuk]

So in essence, does anyone know if a LEA ICT department can be the allocated managed service provider under BSF edicts?

 

I don't think the LEA itself can do it, but a company can be owned by the LEA which can.

 

I have a sneaky suspicion that this is what is going to happen down here - or at least I hope so. Our county council has just partnered with devon and various other bits to create 'Southwest One' which has taken on the central ICT role. Hopefully they will be in a position to bid for the job. Better the devil you know...

Edited February 18, 2008 by GrumbleDook

[Deaks]

I don't think the LEA itself can do it, but a company can be owned by the LEA which can.

 

I have a sneaky suspicion that this is what is going to happen down here - or at least I hope so. Our county council has just partnered with devon and various other bits to create 'Southwest One' which has taken on the central ICT role. Hopefully they will be in a position to bid for the job. Better the devil you know...

 

If the company is in any way owned by the LEA or County Council there would be a conflict of interest issue preventing them from bidding for any BSF contracts. That's what we were told in Kent anyway. The LEA has an IT supprt organisation that has been shut out of BSF here.

[conehead]

Hmm, interesting that a ICT department has to set up as a different company to do it first though, I suppose it's not unprecedented though. In my area the local council housing repairs is done by a separate "independant" company which was previously just the local council's own repairs department.