Tell us about BSF

[russdev]

or b/ they have been gagged as I know that RM takes a very harsh view of negative threads about them.. even as an end user we were blocked from chatting on forums with the threat of losingn the software

 

 

Hmm not going to get into debate about BSF but would say that you are wrong about rm and people talking about it. You look on here number of threads that RM and some are very negative yet we have never once but asked to remove an RM thread and as far as i am aware no member on here has had rm contact them off board saying remove a thread.

 

As for being threatened having software removed for talking about RM if you provide (via pm if wish) your details and who made the threat etc in what context I will gladly pass it on to member of senior managment for them to investigate it as managment would not be happy with behaviour of this member of staff I am sure. But I will be honest I don't expect you to take this offer up so

 

This offer is open to anyone who has had that experience.

 

Russell

[Butuz]

Maybe you should read what I said again SLOWLY and you might understand what I am getting at. ...

 

No need to try and make me look slow, or stupid, or blind! I am quite capable of doing that myself!

 

I agree on a rational argument anyday..but we don't need someone with super intelligence feeding/giving super information to the enemy

 

Then provide one... rather than spouting on about enemy's and super intelligent admins and other assorted wierdness.

 

Are you that naive to think that because you are playing as a gentlemen they will... they want your Network as it means profits to them... Well not yours because Wales is not going to be purged by the BSF?..

 

As you say - at the moment there are no BSF type plans in Wales *phew*. We're concentrating on Rugby at the mo I am not naive - quite the opposite which is why I am spending so much time in the BSF form taking in what is going on over the border even though it does not affect me.

 

So from my point of view is BSF a good or a bad thing? It is clear it is going to be a good thing for some schools, and a bad thing for some schools - but what about for education as a whole?

 

At the moment it looks to be a bad thing overall. Privatisation of our education is never a good thing. It comes across as being costly only because it is forcing schools to bring their ICT bang up to date. I've seen 10% of the budget spent on ICT mentioned - if I had 10% of our budget to spend on ICT we'd have a 1:1 ratio with gold plated laptops and diamond encrusted WAP's all through the school. This financial year I actually had 0.8% of the budget to spend on ICT.

 

BSF seems to be forcing schools to take ICT as seriously as they should be taking it - is this a bad thing?

 

Butuz

[Joanne]

I have to agree with butuz on his last comment. Some schools fail to realise how much money they should be spending on IT.

 

My fellas school get 20k a year. Currently they have 1 senior tech and 2 apprentices looking after the network. They don't want to take on the apprentices because of money issues... they are allready snowed under as it is, barely having time to answer my e-mails asking how his day is going!!

 

Some schools need a shake and a wakeup call about their ICT needs. Many schools take their Computer Services departments for granted and BSF will show them!!

 

Unfortunately though a lot of schools do take IT seriously... and these are the ones who are missing out

[donutcat]

BSF seems to be forcing schools to take ICT as seriously as they should be taking it - is this a bad thing?

 

You're quite correct it is no bad thing, for those schools who do not take it seriuosly, and for the government to take it seriously. The biggest problem is the manner in which it is being implemented. A blanket cover is not going to give the best results, a measured approach, tested against pre-set BECTA (if necessary) guidelines with optional correction is better.

 

Test the school, if they are below the required level give them the choice of sorting it out themselves, or buy into a managed service to get them there quickly. This would be a better use of taxpayers money, but it is harder to give quality management information to show the benefit of each as neither of the two approaches has been tested on mass. The rollout of BSF ICT projects as the stand have not been done, and although they are being touted as better than the school has, because what the school has is an unknown, the MSP service has not been tested either because there is nothing to test against. What we may see is the implementation of manages services to all BSF schools, who after their contract turn back to in house. It is what has happened in Bedfordshire with the county provided managed service.

 

Why do schools need in house when the option has been there for some time to go managed. Why, when as a county, we have a central managed service provider do schools have in house staff. I would suggest that it is because the managed service route did not work and schools had to respond from their own budgets to fill the gap. The government did not suppor them with proper funding, and now are using the BSF money to blackmail schools into conforming to an IT provision that has failed before.

 

Roll on 5 years after BSF hits, then we can do our jobs again.

 

DC

Edited March 14, 2008 by donutcat

[Geoff]

Any other Mensa members here?

 

Yep.

[russdev]

Hey that is cheating Geoff as you are a google server you have knowledge of whole internet

 

Russ

[broc]

We all need to step back for a moment and remind ourselves of why we are where we are with BSF;

 

The whole BSF program is being driven by the need to repair the years of neglect and lack of funding for our ageing school buildings. This is the fault of successive Governments and the problem has now reached a crisis point. Unfortunately HM Treasury simply does not have the money to rebuild schools, anymore than they have the money for building hospitals, prisons etc.

 

HM Govt have turned to the private sector to finance this whole program, which is why Partnership UK and Partnership for Schools has such a strong say in the outcome. Both of these organisations have large private sector financial stakeholders behind them so it is no surprise that they are keen to see as much 'payback' as they can get from their involvement in BSF.

 

At the same time, there is a power struggle going on between Local Government and Central Government. LAs have for some time been forced to increasingly relinquish control of schools and BSF attempts to further marginalise the LA involvement in the LEP who will 'administer' the school buildings and services and hand more of this to the private sector.

 

No matter how hard we shout & make a fuss, we are not going to change any of this.

 

All we can do is make sure that through our schools, our voice is heard. We can point out to our schools those areas where we believe BSF will have an impact (positive and negative) and make sure the school leadership teams and Governors are aware of the issues that a managed ICT service might present. It is up to the school leadership team to argue the case with the LA, along with other schools in their area and shape their own ICT solution which will be 'managed' under BSF.

 

If we are lucky, we will be asked to get involved in the process early enough to have an influence. Schools that are already switched on to ICT will do this I have no doubt, because they value the service they have and will want to ensure BSF does not result in a deterioration of service/increased cost. Schools that do not value ICT, or have failed to invest will sit back & wait & see what BSF gives them.

 

I am not pro-BSF, I am not sitting on the fence, I have grave misgivings about BSF; however I do know which fights to pick, and when.

 

Fighting BSF head-on is not a fight we will win, and I doubt unprofessional squabbling amongst ourselves will help.

[donutcat]

Broc,

It is exactly that schools are not being informed that we are in such uncertainty. All we can do at this stage is to highlight to as many people that we need to be listened to. Or that we, as educational IT professionals have misgivings, not only concerning our own jobs, but the good of the education our children will be receiving. What the teachers, governors, LAs LEPs and eventually government do about it is out of our hands.

The BSF pricipal is good the implementation is what we are questioning and want input on.

 

To make our point, first we must be heard. How we do that I don't know. Any Ideas?

DC

[Grommit]

 

To make our point, first we must be heard. How we do that I don't know. Any Ideas?

DC

 

HELLO!!! .. what do you think this thread is about ... LMAO....

 

This thread is from a reporter asking about the BSF to do an article in Computer.net...

 

Thats why we need as much dirt as possible.. and try to make it stick... and not have people like you washing it off all the time..

 

*sigh* you really don't get the picture do you ?

[KarlGoddard]

HELLO!!! .. what do you think this thread is about ... LMAO....

 

This thread is from a reporter asking about the BSF to do an article in Computer.net...

 

Thats why we need as much dirt as possible.. and try to make it stick... and not have people like you washing it off all the time..

 

*sigh* you really don't get the picture do you ?

 

I think if we approached this 'discussion' from a 'find as much dirt as we can...' standpoint and not from a mature, professional and considered opinion (which is what most of us are - mature, level headed professionals) we'll come across as paranoid, ill informed geeks whose main concern is about being separated from our servers

 

I'm from a very successful, well financed school. I get paid probably 1 scale higher than most other techs in my LA. Our school network is the best I've ever worked with in terms of kit, reliability and uptime. I have a well qualified, experienced ICT manager who has brought 'customer focussed' approach to ICT support within the school. Staff, governors and pupils are *very* happy with the school ICT infrastructure.

 

Our school will be one of those expected to be mauled by BSF. Both me an my manager are concerned about BSF.

 

But before I go 'digging for dirt' I want to see what's going to happen to my school. Worse case scenario is that I look for another job. I'll deal with that when it happens - if it ever does. But what I won't do is start scaremongering and passing off guess work as fact.

 

That's my take on it, anyway.

[contink]

I think if we approached this 'discussion' from a 'find as much dirt as we can...' standpoint and not from a mature, professional and considered opinion (which is what most of us are - mature, level headed professionals) we'll come across as paranoid, ill informed geeks whose main concern is about being separated from our servers

 

I couldn't agree more... This thread has turned into a paranoid frothing at the mouth tabloid joke.. All this talk of "finding dirt" is just feeding into the hands of any half way intelligent spin doctor to paint IT techs as unprofessional idiots and IMHO is doing more damage to the case that BSF is not necessarily a good idea than anything else.

[Joanne]

I'm with you two on that one...

 

The only real annoyance I have with the managed service thing is that they are not being completely honest with us about what will happen... mainly because they don't actually know themselves.

 

Hey if I get taken on by them... even if it is for only a short time then at least |I'll have that experience and get to see inside other schools.... heck, it might even be FUN!!

[broc]

Broc,

It is exactly that schools are not being informed that we are in such uncertainty. All we can do at this stage is to highlight to as many people that we need to be listened to. Or that we, as educational IT professionals have misgivings, not only concerning our own jobs, but the good of the education our children will be receiving. What the teachers, governors, LAs LEPs and eventually government do about it is out of our hands.

The BSF pricipal is good the implementation is what we are questioning and want input on.

 

To make our point, first we must be heard. How we do that I don't know. Any Ideas?

DC

 

There is no magic answer I am afraid;

 

You need to be aware of where your school is in the BSF program and at what stage your LA is at. Right now, shortlisting/choice of supplier decisions are being/have been made by LAs for schools in waves 1-3 so for them the die has been cast. Later waves are still in various stages of discussion but LAs are unlikely to have decided which supplier consortium they will place the business with yet. Knowing where your LA has got to under BSF and their attitude towards managed services affects your ability to engage in discussion.

 

The critical document that sets the seal on the shape of the ICT infrastructure for an ICT managed service is known as the 'draft output spec'. This is the document that is provided to potential bidders to obtain proposals for the business, so it is vital that all of your schools requirements are contained in this document. Make sure if you can that you get to see this, even better try and have a say in how it should look. Be pushy.....

 

It is during the drafting of this document that you should be able to ensure the proposed infrastructure is 'fit for purpose' as any bidder who fails to meet the requirements in this document will be dropped from the bidding process.

 

If your school leadership team care about their ICT infrastructure, they should also care about their levels of support. As you will have realised by now there are plenty of valid issues that have been identified by Grommit & others about the likely impact of BSF so you need to consolidate these and put them to school management in such a way as to highlight the potential areas where teaching and learning might suffer; they in turn need to make sure the LA, when dealing with potential suppliers have got answers and solutions to address the issues. If the schools were all to demand their existing ICT staff remain on site, or stipulate minimum numbers of technicians be on site then this would have to be considered.

 

Not every LA is keen on the idea of handing over full control to private companies; not every LA is keen on having a minority stake in the LEP that will run schools in their authority. The standard BSF model can be changed if the schools are willing to take a stand.

[Simcfc73]

Interesting read.. just glad I work in a Private school.

[beeswax]

The only real annoyance I have with the managed service thing is that they are not being completely honest with us about what will happen... mainly because they don't actually know themselves.

 

I wouldn't say they're being dishonest, rather they are not giving us the full picture.

[Joanne]

isn't that the same thing

[CyberNerd]

The only real annoyance I have with the managed service thing is that they are not being completely honest with us about what will happen... mainly because they don't actually know themselves.

 

They are required to consult with you. The employer must consult on any changes that impact on the workforce. This is covered by the information and consultation act. They may just be waiting until the very last minute to consult because they need to keep maintain the service. If all the techs leave now then they can't maintain a service.

[Joanne]

I'm looking for a new jobsie anyways... only thing is, so is every other average Joe... so most IT jobs want you to know everything and expect to pay you minimum.... I can earn more money working in a cafe a sad fact of life.

[donutcat]

I am aware that as a county we are at the stage before writing the output specs, the county are selecting ICT consultants to begin this process. I will be trying my hardest to get myself and other techs from my region into the consultation process. Our plan at the moment is to team up with our current county managed service and make a business case for increasing their services and putting them and us together as one support team.

 

@Grommit

I do fully understand the purpose of this thread, my finishing comment was one of glib defeat, however if you think that by simply involving the press we will get the consultation process I think we are after you may be misguided. The pushing behind the BSF program appears to be the government who will not back down. Education is more political than it should be which leads to seemingly random decisions. The only people with power to stop the BSF program are the teaching unions, who quite rightly are placing the benefit of the new buildings above the potenital detriment of losing internal IT.

I can fully appreciate the centiment that Grommit articulates, and I too have been expressing my frustration at what seems to me to be a step away from the goal that IT in schools should be aiming for.

I would like to thank Broc for responding with practical advice as to my next moves with the BSF program.

DC

[wesleyw]

A business model where people like Ramesys, RM, VT4S, Capita, etc come in and tell you what to do, remembering that if it does not work then they will not get further contracts ... and these are companies that cannot afford to screw up these projects right now, both on a commercial and political level.

 

So, if you don't want a business based model, and you don't want a consultant telling you what to do, what do you want? (the choice of being left alone is no longer available since this is a politics thing and someone has to show accountability somewhere!)

 

 

I have no problem with the BSF project even the idea that we may lose our jobs and the ability for the school to control the IT environment however sorry Tony but I have to disagree with the fact they can't afford to screw up because they have before and they are still getting business now from the govt NHS anyone? With the sort of money they'll make from the deals some of the businesses won't care if the project they are involved in fails they can always blame quite a few things on unrealistic targets, end user naivety, anything other than it's their fault for not taking everything into account in an unfamiliar area.

 

What do we want? I want to be involved in planning process a little at least so poke hole at some of the ideas and to fully understand where the BSF consultants and contractors are coming from if they make a good case and can back up their plans then I have no problem with them however I would put a clause in the contract stating if they fail to meet any or all of the expectations they will have to refund the full cost of the contract not just the ICT provision but everything for that school or even the entire LEA the money can go back to the govt for all I care as long as they know if they don't get it right they don't keep any money and will axctually be making a loss this may get them to give us what we need and hopefully what we want.

 

 

 

Without trying to inflate the ego of members of this board, it could be argued that by participating in such a forum we are more likely to be the most pro-active of network support personnel in schools, therefore we are more likely to be running stable, secure and innovative networks. However, this certainly isn't the case for all schools. We've all heard the horror stories from the new teachers from different schools and we've met the network manager who is obdurate to the improvement of the school network and to any change to the status quo. These schools will benefit massively as the 'baseline' brings these schools up-to-date.

 

Having a homogeneous infrastructure across LA schools will provide massive benefits for the users of our networks and will provide real transferability. Teachers and pupils have a single network identity to access all their own resources from any school within the authority, indeed from any internet enabled PC. The movement of pupils across schools will become a joined up process where their user id, password, cash for the canteen, MIS data, VLE data all transfer with them automatically.

 

The purchasing power of an entire LA will deliver real value for taxpayers' money. Authorities will be able to 'flex their muscles' with the big-boys and drive education prices down not just for the cash-rich schools with 2 or 3 specialisms, but for all.

 

What about the current network support personnel, won't we be losing their expertise? Well, no, really. The good managed service providers will realise the expertise that their new employees provide and will keep these people involved on the 'front-line'. What BSF does provide is a 'widening of horizons'. Proper CPD will mean those with the talent will rise to the top of the educational IT support and will not only be providing innovation in 1 school but will be passing on their good ideas to whole cohorts of schools. With more and more of these roles developing, best practices will evolve, still on sites like this, that spread far and wide into school networks.

 

 

The goal posts have sadly changed I don't believe that the entire LEA network will be centrally stored in a server farm any more so this isn't particularly true more along the lines of per school.

 

As for purchasing power it would be purchasing power of the managed service provider who could be a much bigger than a single LEA.

 

The idea of having a career with more opportunities should be good for us all as in most cases unlike Tony we have no job available to us in SMT we are at the height of our job ladder and as such this can mean we go "off the boil" a little and get comfy in the job we have so we become "bitter and twisted" or "resistant to change"

 

 

I have to agree with butuz on his last comment. Some schools fail to realise how much money they should be spending on IT.

 

My fellas school get 20k a year. Currently they have 1 senior tech and 2 apprentices looking after the network. They don't want to take on the apprentices because of money issues... they are allready snowed under as it is, barely having time to answer my e-mails asking how his day is going!!

 

Some schools need a shake and a wakeup call about their ICT needs. Many schools take their Computer Services departments for granted and BSF will show them!!

 

Unfortunately though a lot of schools do take IT seriously... and these are the ones who are missing out

 

 

I think I'd like to see a few BSF schools for myself and see how well or not they work. Sustainability is an interesting point at this juncture what sort of budget will be available to the school to provide the level of IT it has once the 5 years are up? Not just how many computers but the amount of technologies in the background that it may now have. Not sure how to word some of this so forgive the ambiguous nature of the post. The BSF come in and say that they will guarantee a ICT provision that is 10% above the BECTA top tier. Full Thin Client Music and Video editing suites everything the total cost is absorbed in the BSF ICT budget for the sake of argument £1,000,000. The managed service will be paid for out of this budget as well however in 5 years time this budget will not exist and the school will have to look at funding the operation to refit and rebuild all of their ICT provision including possibly the managed IT Service. Now if the school is used to the 10% above top tier from BECTA and after five years this system is now looking only just passable say lowest requirement tier then the school will need to look at the cost of not just replacing old and broken kit but bringing their standards back up to where they were five years ago. I think BSF is fantastic I know any of us here can get good IT jobs in industry and I know we'll keep hearing from Grommit and many others (quite rightly) about how BSF contractors won't understand T&L but does that matter if they don't? They'll be using a clear definition of standards BECTA want to see who are after all a group we do pay attention to. Losing my job so that the school can benefit fair enough! Losing my job so some supplier can get a profit not happy about that, losing my job because of mistakes several different govt have made over the last 20 years? Really not happy. Okay I'm losing my job whatever happens TUPED or not because it won't be the same job as I have been doing! However lets be sensible it's coming whether we like it or not lets at least try to advise SMT and the LEA what is needed in these schools to bring them up to the standards we set ourselves (usually much higher than BECTA)

 

 

Wes

[Geoff]

I am aware that as a county we are at the stage before writing the output specs, the county are selecting ICT consultants to begin this process. I will be trying my hardest to get myself and other techs from my region into the consultation process. Our plan at the moment is to team up with our current county managed service and make a business case for increasing their services and putting them and us together as one support team.

 

Lancashire will be attempting something similar.

[Grommit]

I have been through the BSF and was at the meeting table when the BSF Consultants said that we would lose control of our ICT and the staff would be halved....

 

And that the Future of ICT in Schools there would no need for ICT Managers...

 

8 Schools would have 1 ICT Manager and 10 to 15 Tech's (job losses of 7 ICT Managers and 15 Technicians) as in TUPE'ing you can retrench staff if it is not economically viable and this does not have to be presented at the initial discussions as it can be done later after an reassessment of the contract.. say in 6 months

 

I was there and I was gobsmacked....

 

I think if we approached this 'discussion' from a 'find as much dirt as we can...' standpoint and not from a mature, professional and considered opinion (which is what most of us are - mature, level headed professionals) we'll come across as paranoid, ill informed geeks whose main concern is about being separated from our servers

 

Do you know the expression .. "Good girls go to Heaven.. and Bad Girls go everywhere".. well that's life.. the Good get slaughtered because they think it's a level playing field and the Bad get everything...

 

But before I go 'digging for dirt' I want to see what's going to happen to my school. Worse case scenario is that I look for another job. I'll deal with that when it happens - if it ever does. But what I won't do is start scaremongering and passing off guess work as fact.

 

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

Why do you think the Consultants keep you in the dark as much as possible.. because the less you know the less you can object to ... So jolly ho... anyway you sit back and wait and deal with it when it happens.. by that time it's already too late....

 

Some other Edugeek Members waited until the Consultation started and now they are being called Negative by their teaching colleagues because they telling it like it is and all their teachers see is a big bright shiny school..

 

 

I couldn't agree more... This thread has turned into a paranoid frothing at the mouth tabloid joke.. All this talk of "finding dirt" is just feeding into the hands of any half way intelligent spin doctor to paint IT techs as unprofessional idiots and IMHO is doing more damage to the case that BSF is not necessarily a good idea than anything else.

 

You are naive...... the idea is to try and show the BSF Weak (dirt) Points in an articulate way and try to make a strong business case of keeping the ICT Support in-House .... not be unprofessional as you suggest

 

How is this frothing at the mouth and being paranoid ?

 

I wouldn't say they're being dishonest, rather they are not giving us the full picture.

 

Exactly the fine art of misinformation or lack of information... keeps the opposition in the dark and they don't know what to oppose..

 

for instance... they'll sometimes have BSF ICT Meetings on siteand not invite the ICT Manager

 

Misinformation is wrong or inaccurate information. It is distinguished from disinformation by motive. Misinformation is simply erroneous. Disinformation, in contrast, is intended to mislead.

 

and

 

A common disinformation tactic is to mix truth, half-truths, and lies.

 

Disinformants sometimes seek to gain the confidence of their audience through emotional appeals or by using semi-neutral language interlaced with threads of disinformation.

 

"Disinformation is a fact of life in politics. Those who practice politics for a living call it "spin."

 

 

Hey if I get taken on by them... even if it is for only a short time then at least |I'll have that experience and get to see inside other schools.... heck, it might even be FUN!!

 

*giggle* *giggle* what FUN!

[russdev]

To be fair grommit you been through pathfinders which best way to describe is the alpha of bsf so not been through bsf.

 

 

 

Russ

[GrumbleDook]

@Russ

 

Yeah, but the pathfinders are meant to be closely examined to see what went right and what went wrong, and you can guess what there is more of.

 

On the building side of the pathfinders (people may not be bothered about this side but this is where the majority of the money is spent), we have a number of the same complaints that you get with PFI. Pathfinders did not fix them. Common problems include communication between all parties (project management in large building projects tend to be designed to avoid talking with the client, that is both the LA and the school), the architectural designs have yet to be standarised so you end up with form over function, due to the needs to get the most teaching space in the footprint of the building there is a serious lack of storage / useful offices / functional areas (eg server room, cleaners' cupboards on different floors). This side of things will get better within each authority as the wave progresses, but it does mean that the first two sets of schools worked on will have most problems (NB personal observation based on comments from conversations with a variety of groups involved with PFI, Academies and BSF). On the up side there are many schools where the new building and facilities are significant improvements, including the removal of mobile classrooms that have been repaired and re-repaired for over 15 years, classrooms that are fit for purpose and can accommodate the correct number of students in a safe and flexible maner, and the environment is conducive to learning. These last points are what are used as a measure of success ... so it is considered to be, on the whole, a success ... but people still look at the remaining problems to adapt things in future waves.

 

On the IT side, it is hard to even start analysing the issues without getting into those sides of the arguements that don't actually move the discussion forward, stamping our feet about job losses (a union fight ... and they are getting involved), moaning about changing job roles (again ... a fight between the union, your school and your LA), the lack of information and knowledge within the school (schools have to be active when seeking information about most things nowadays and BSF is no different. The main issue is knowing where to get information from, ensuring the right people get the information (our definition of the 'right people' can be vastly different to that of the LA, Central Govt, the Managed Service companies or the other agencies) and ensuring that the information is relevant, correct and is based on good evidenced.

 

But back to the IT side ... the main issue is that even with pathfinders it is hard to provide hard evidence, or even evaluate, the impact the changes on IT are making on the T&L, the achievement and attainment, and the leadership and administration within schools. A sizable amount of the basis of the implementation of the use of ICT is based around the ICT Test beds, key innovative schools, PFI schools and Academies. I keep talking about wave 5 being the key wave ... this is the wave that has had the most information about previous work, had the most support and has had the most input from schools (again, information from conversations with agencies and schools). It is also the wave with schools that are aware of the politics from the earliest moment, and are starting to realise the power that schools have directly. Hard as it may be to believe, PfS is happy for the schools to be more aware as it puts the schools, LAs and bidders on an even footing, for a change.

 

For some schools, it is a case of damage limitation. That is plainly obvious and we know that, unless major changes occur during the contract period, the schools in Waves 1 and 2 are unlikely to stay within a managed service due to the service itself, the lack of flexibilty, the cost and the sheer fact that more schools will be at this magical raised baseline and will have a desire to move further than can be provided by the Managed Service providers.

 

In 3 years time we will still be having these arguements, but with a different angle ... looking at how an LA, or group of schools in a cluster, can take the existing service and see that it can be more cost effective to managed it all without the Managed Service provider. Then we get another 2 years of touching on this until we get some firm changes ... and yes, in 5 years time we will be looking, for a goodly number of schools, at another change.

 

You can argue that this is good or bad ... it can be considered a forced change rather than a change through desire (a number of management books / mags / companies argue about the difference of this and the impact that it has ... but that seriously is a different discussion and tends to involve those people with chauffeurs and made to measure clothes!) and so we will have the same arguements ... jobs will be moved around ... job roles will change ... and it reminds me of the old adage, 'there is never anything new in politics'.

 

In the summer I do intend to spend more time looking at pathfinders but I would still recommend that whatever gets discussed has the background of the 3 criteria I have mentioned before.

 

If we want to cover issues such as space for technicians, the provision of server rooms, the quality of kit deployed, the cost ... they can all be rated as to how the impact the above and this then allows us to set out how it can be measured. If *we* can clearly show that these areas can be measured then there is a serious discussion to be had about coming up with a framework to help schools and LAs in their Business Plan, their scoring of bidders, their negotiation with preferred bidder, and measurable outcomes during the contract itself.

 

Personally, I don't have time to do the above ... not for another 2 years (until we start the work in Northants) ... but there are many here that have personal experience that will help others. NB, this is going to be to help future waves ... and would then need adapting to form some sort of process for damage limitation for earlier waves.

 

Also, please note that this amount of intervention is not required for *all* schools. We still have the situation that due to previously mentioned underfunding, lack of vision and strategy, and poor skill sets of support staff due to poor pay and lack of training. There are still going to be a sizable chunk of schools that will see improvements. The arguement is how we deal with schools that will see a dip due to a managed service or a change in the delivery of IT support.

[contink]

You are naive...... the idea is to try and show the BSF Weak (dirt) Points in an articulate way and try to make a strong business case of keeping the ICT Support in-House .... not be unprofessional as you suggest

 

My point does not relate to the desire to look at the negatives of BSF, my argument is how you are making your points or to quote many mothers

It's not what you say it's how you say it

 

You've occasionally fallen into the trap of using emotive language and gutter terms like "finding the dirt" that some tabloid journo' won't hesitate to quote and use to show how unprofessional the arguments are. They aren't going to sit and list all the well thought out points or discussion but go for the phrases that make us look like a bunch of blithering idiots.

 

It sounds like you've taken on the point though as you're saying yourself that the arguments need to be articulate, just try to avoid going off on one is all.