Future of IT Support.

[pcstru]

As MATs grow, the person running the operational areas (including Finance, HR, etc.) is more likely to have come from a non-teaching background, and is more switched on to the investment in CPD.

That would be nice. However, exactly the opposite has happened here. I'm hoping it is a short term aberration but I see no actual evidence of that.

Personally, I would love to see BCS get a grip of professionalisation of IT is schools, but I've pushed on that for the last 10 years and have gotten nowhere.

I personally don't see who it would serve. There is also in IT a highly variable baseline compared to (say) medicne, teaching or law where on entry to the profession, the baseline is a graduate who has completed a fairly standard 3-5 years of study and been assessed and declared competent against that (consistent) baseline. In IT, it is common for experience to trump qualifications and the entry baseline is ... well, often nothing more than enthusiasm and an ability to tinker.

[pcstru]

As MATs grow, the person running the operational areas (including Finance, HR, etc.) is more likely to have come from a non-teaching background, and is more switched on to the investment in CPD.

That would be nice. However, exactly the opposite has happened here. I'm hoping it is a short term aberration but I see no actual evidence of that.

Personally, I would love to see BCS get a grip of professionalisation of IT is schools, but I've pushed on that for the last 10 years and have gotten nowhere.

I personally don't see who it would serve. There is also in IT a highly variable baseline compared to (say) medicne, teaching or law where on entry to the profession, the baseline is a graduate who has completed a fairly standard 3-5 years of study and been assessed and declared competent against that (consistent) baseline. In IT, it is common for experience to trump qualifications and the entry baseline is ... well, often nothing more than enthusiasm and an ability to tinker.

[localzuk]

The BCS SCIP stuff does have an expectation of a relatively "formal" IT career. They are looking for a lot of specific terms in their tests for example.

 

How many working in IT in education would know the difference between iterative, incremental, V-model and waterfall methodologies for project management? If you've not had formal training you've got no chance. And with many of us, there has indeed been very little formal training. Just what we've picked up day to day.

 

So, whilst I support people getting SCIP, I fear there's a chicken and egg situation here. It would definitely raise the job's prestige, that's for sure.

[localzuk]

The BCS SCIP stuff does have an expectation of a relatively "formal" IT career. They are looking for a lot of specific terms in their tests for example.

 

How many working in IT in education would know the difference between iterative, incremental, V-model and waterfall methodologies for project management? If you've not had formal training you've got no chance. And with many of us, there has indeed been very little formal training. Just what we've picked up day to day.

 

So, whilst I support people getting SCIP, I fear there's a chicken and egg situation here. It would definitely raise the job's prestige, that's for sure.

[Dos_Box]

I came into the 'game' in 2000. My first network had me supporting the following (I'll exclude users in this):

 

• 1 x NT 4.0 Server (inc Exchange 5.5 on the same box)
  
• 60 x Desktops
  
• 4 x Network printers
  

 

By the time I left 3 years later to run another network (+additional duties) it was:

 

 

 

• 4 x Server 2000 servers With Exchange 2000 and ISA Server)
  
• 100 x Desktops
  
• 4 x Laptops
  
• 20 x Network printers
  
• 2 x Projectors (no whiteboards yet though)
  
• 1 x Wireless access point
  

 

By the time I finished to do EduGeek full time I (still on my own) was supporting:

 

 

 

• 6 x Server 2008
  
• 2 x SAN
  
• 70 x Desktops
  
• 50 x Laptops
  
• 20 Mobiles and PDA's
  
• 2 x Whiteboards + projectors
  
• 20 x MacBooks
  
• 1 x Wireless network
  

 

The point is, there will always be a need for IT support, just that the things you support change over time, even increasing in number. Even cloud based services need support at a local level (TBH, when Exchange went to the cloud I jumped for joy. The pain of trying to keep an Exchange Server running at times can be extreamly frustrating).

And even the most well designed and developed technologies still have their foibles. There will still be support, but what you will be supportign in 10 years time will be very different to what you are supporting now.

Imagine the fun of having to configure 10 x VR headsets

[Dos_Box]

I came into the 'game' in 2000. My first network had me supporting the following (I'll exclude users in this):

 

• 1 x NT 4.0 Server (inc Exchange 5.5 on the same box)
  
• 60 x Desktops
  
• 4 x Network printers
  

 

By the time I left 3 years later to run another network (+additional duties) it was:

 

 

 

• 4 x Server 2000 servers With Exchange 2000 and ISA Server)
  
• 100 x Desktops
  
• 4 x Laptops
  
• 20 x Network printers
  
• 2 x Projectors (no whiteboards yet though)
  
• 1 x Wireless access point
  

 

By the time I finished to do EduGeek full time I (still on my own) was supporting:

 

 

 

• 6 x Server 2008
  
• 2 x SAN
  
• 70 x Desktops
  
• 50 x Laptops
  
• 20 Mobiles and PDA's
  
• 2 x Whiteboards + projectors
  
• 20 x MacBooks
  
• 1 x Wireless network
  

 

The point is, there will always be a need for IT support, just that the things you support change over time, even increasing in number. Even cloud based services need support at a local level (TBH, when Exchange went to the cloud I jumped for joy. The pain of trying to keep an Exchange Server running at times can be extreamly frustrating).

And even the most well designed and developed technologies still have their foibles. There will still be support, but what you will be supportign in 10 years time will be very different to what you are supporting now.

Imagine the fun of having to configure 10 x VR headsets

[Ephelyon]

I personally don't see who it would serve. There is also in IT a highly variable baseline compared to (say) medicne, teaching or law where on entry to the profession, the baseline is a graduate who has completed a fairly standard 3-5 years of study and been assessed and declared competent against that (consistent) baseline. In IT, it is common for experience to trump qualifications and the entry baseline is ... well, often nothing more than enthusiasm and an ability to tinker.

 

... but should it be?

 

I'd argue that if the baseline is that much more variable, that's even more of a reason to regulate further along the line... it would mean an end to "my husband's good with computers", for sure! So in this scenario, that person wishing to take on an IT role formally (i.e. actually being employed, not just helping out) would have to firstly join the BCS (a requirement of which would be baseline competence), then have their competence for that level of role assessed.

 

I mean, come on, there are reasons why we don't let unlicensed people practise medicine, or law, or electrical work... why should it be okay for the profession that manages/develops/maintains the technology we've decided to hang half the bl**dy planet off the back of?!

 

It would be part of the "coming of age" of people taking IT seriously as a "proper" profession, which it has all the other hallmarks of if you ask me, just not these professional structures that you see elsewhere. I know and understand the historical reasons behind why that's the case, but it's now 2017 and I think it's "growing up time" for the world's view of this...

[PotNoodleTech]

Well medicine and electrical work can both easily kill someone if done incompetently and law has the ability to make/break many peoples lives.

 

I wouldn't put those three, and Educational IT Support on the same level to be honest. If a NAS dies and you lose some data, no one is going to actually, die.

[Ephelyon]

Well, the point is it's IT in general, not specifically in education but everywhere.

 

And when you look at it like that, there are a lot of things that go wrong in IT that could have a potential impact on someone's life. Banks go down and people can't get to their money... a data breach occurs owing to poor security and the company goes bust (we've all seen the figures) so both owners and employees are out of a job, and potentially their house if they can't find another one in time... a database corruption/indexing issue results in mixed-up data so people are given the wrong medication (could be life-threatening), etc... it's all possible!

[pcstru]

... but should it be?

Yes, it should and more to the point, it is. The revolution we have seen in IT is IMO largely because the bar to entry in terms of qualifications and professional status is low or non existent. That has left the field wide open to people who are self starters and who do not engage well with formal education or the requirements of professional bodies. At the same time lack of "professional standards in IT" has not compromised organisations abilities to build with quality; it is just up to them to identify where they need, or have a legal duty to operate to a particular level of quality.

 

As far as I can see there is nothing to stop anyone joining the BCS. They (the BCS) do not need to have a particular specialisation for schools IT folks. Similarly there is nothing to stop schools upping their game in terms of qualifications etc, including asking for membership of BCS. Instead you are more likely to see ITIL, PRINCE2 or various MS/CISCO etc certifications asked for. That is driven by a much more focused approach to recruiting people with the right skills, rather than hoping membership of a professional body has magically produced what the employer needs.

 

Just thinking of examples from this forum; how often do we see our members moaning at Teachers and Senior Leaders about how helpless they often are in the face of relatively simple technology, tasks or management. Now remember, they are ALL members of professional bodies. That strongly suggests to me that professionalisation of a role is not some magic bullet. Yet it has a huge cost and that cost is unnecessary and would be, in the end, uncompetitive.

[Ephelyon]

I agree completely that the IT revolution over the past few decades was only really possible because of the low entry bar. But considering how far it's now come in the world, that may no longer be the best approach. There are also other professions where there never used to be that degree of entry requirement - indeed, technically that has been the case for all professions at some point. But eventually we decided we did need those structures for some of those professions, for plenty of reasons, and I think now the time has come for IT. As for a specialist approach to education... I'd argue in a sector that has no professional standards for anyone who isn't a teacher, it would be considerably helpful!

 

There are plenty of organisations with a good approach to IT; there are also plenty without one, and professionalisation would go some way towards helping with this. It means professionals have more career structure (and more respect), while employers know what they're getting when they employ someone. Yes, there are employers that don't need that, but there are also employers that do, and they suffer at the moment when things go wrong because of it. A professional body would not, of course, "magically produce what is needed"... but knowing you're getting someone with e.g. Senior Practitioner-level skills and experience, as validated by someone else, because that's what you specifically asked for in your advert, removes a lot of the "dark art" element that is faced particularly by education leaders, coming as they tend to from a single profession and thereby often lacking the diversity needed within a leadership team to accurately appraise the suitability of professionals they're taking on from other fields.

 

Lastly, the professionalisation of teaching is hugely beneficial in terms of the career structures and progression opportunities they currently have. Things would be very different for them if they didn't have that - never mind being helpless with technology, that's got nothing to do with professionalisation of their own field.

[GrumbleDook]

In the same way that anyone with an interest can become a mechanic, you need to have a certain leave of certified professional aptitude to be an MOT tester.

Having some sort of baseline would be a good starting point.

It is scary for those of us without trade certs (which provide evidence to your capabilities) but if people want to have professional recognition and all that goes with it, then being part of an association that holds those standards is a key part.

[pcstru]

In the same way that anyone with an interest can become a mechanic, you need to have a certain leave of certified professional aptitude to be an MOT tester.

Having some sort of baseline would be a good starting point.

Sure and to 'do' IT in business to (say) various ISO standards, you essentially have to be able to show 'professional' competency and operational diligence.

It is scary for those of us without trade certs (which provide evidence to your capabilities) but if people want to have professional recognition and all that goes with it, then being part of an association that holds those standards is a key part.

There is nothing stopping people who want to, achieving 'professional' recognition already with BCS or possibly IEEE. I think the problem with @Ephelyon 's struggle is not that there is no route to 'professional' recognition for somebody working in IT in a school, but that it is not a *requirement*. Aside from any benefits there would be a huge cost to that. All that training doesn't come for free, nor these days does a degree. So we employees would potentially pay tens of thousands to get into the game and schools would pay in higher salaries, training and operational costs. Logically, if I am to believe there would be sufficient benefits to offset those costs, then I have to believe I must currently be doing a poor job (because I am not realising those potential benefits now and the only difference is entirely epistemological).

[flyinghaggis]

Sure and to 'do' IT in business to (say) various ISO standards, you essentially have to be able to show 'professional' competency and operational diligence.

 

Seems like a perfectly reasonable arrangement to me! That's how things work in virtually every other profession/trade out there and they seem to cope with it just fine?

 

Personally I'd far rather have an independent professional body handing out more generalised certifications which are seen as industry standard. There are far too many vendors out there running certifications which only focus on their own specific products and it discourages them from adopting more open standards IMO. I think something like a more formalised and recognised version of CompTIA is the direction I'd like to see things head in future.

Edited March 2, 2017 by flyinghaggis

[bossman]

The only problem I see with gaining a professional status through the BCS is that many companies would not pay for the privilege of employing someone of that particular calibre.

 

When I first started in education with the LA the requirements for the network managers position was a degree in a relevant subject, that has changed now as the position has been somewhat de-skilled and the requirements are now according to the JRE a level 4 NVQ.

 

So whilst the logical movement of professionalism seems the way to go, Public and Private companies will inevitably try to get the best for the least, by way of defining their requirements, thus people will have lower credentials but do more in the workplace for less money as the system retracts the need for top level certification based on internal and external finances.

 

Supply and demand as always drives these decisions in any fiscal environment.

 

This is just my reasoning from experience having gone down the route of professional status with various certs over the years and then to be told by a governing body of people that these are no longer required to maintain your position.

[Ephelyon]

It's basically about knowing what you're getting - and in schools, with leadership teams being primarily composed of people from a single profession, that ought to be a bonus. I think the reason it isn't seen as more of one is a case of not knowing what you don't know, which comes back to that same factor.

[AlanD]

Similar here, anything under £50 can be purchased directly by departments, but anything else we have to have input in.

 

Yes, same here too. Don't allow departments to buy own ICT stuff..and anything so requested in their budgets get diverted. Sometimes budget comes from their allocation, but more typically ICT pays for ICT stuff..partly because some big departments could divert large sums to fund wild IT purchases, while small departments would struggle to buy a box of floppies....well USB sticks..