Foundation Schools

[witch]

I have just returned from a governor's meeting at the large local comp. The head had been to his first BSF consultation meeting and he felt that there wasn't much in it for us as we are very up together - it would help schools that needed it but not us.

I tried to warn him about the IT outsourcing but he was very very dismissive of me and basically said that he could opt out anyway so that wasn't going to happen.

I was left to look a bit of a fool, actually:mad:

Does anyone know if foundation status does mean we can opt out of some of the BSF provision?

Or, if not, where can I find REAL facts and figures to back me up?

The only way he will listen is if I can give him solid, traceable info to prove my case.

[elsiegee40]

I'd love to know the answer to this too witch. I've just become a governor at a local secondary and have been asked to observe ICT as the other governors are "all scared of it".

 

I've got a feeling I might be having to do some major work on this when our turn comes.

[beeswax]

Foundation, or as they were first known, grant maintained, schools can't opt out of BSF, unless something has changed very recently.

[russdev]

But I think trust schools can opt out of it but don't quote me on that.

 

Russell

[mortstar]

But I think trust schools can opt out of it but don't quote me on that.

 

Russell

 

(Sorry I quoted you )

 

This would be the greatest news if true, we are becoming a trust on 1st June this year.

[GrumbleDook]

Trust schools are not an exception according to DCSF. The only alternative scheme is the Academies network, and even then that can be tied in with BSF too to gain additional funding at the same time as becoming an academy.

[witch]

Please, I STILL need some concrete proof that foundation schools cannot opt out as they are convinced that they can and VERY complacent about it.

 

They will not listen to me and so I really need some help here.

 

You should have seen them at the meeting - I tried to explain how things might go - especially in the light of the recent ICT award that particularly mentioned the brilliant IT support within the school - but I was basically heard out in stony silence and then the meeting moved swiftly on to some other thing like car parking!

[GrumbleDook]

THe above linked document from the DCSF *is* the concrete proof.

[markwatkins]

Hope this helps

 

What is the situation with regards to Trust schools and BSF?

 

As local authority maintained schools, Trust schools will remain part of the BSF programme - which focuses on the needs of schools and their pupils rather than on type of school - and must be fully included in their authority’s BSF educational vision and investment project.

[elsiegee40]

Oh * substitute word *!

 

I wonder if there's any chance of this scheme dying before it gets to our cluster...

[GrumbleDook]

Even if we had a change of Govt today and it was Tory or Lib Dems ... the scheme would still go ahead for at least until wave 6, possibly to wave 8.

[witch]

I think that the head still believes that he can choose not to be involved with BSF. It is complicated here by the fact that we are also in a LA which is in the process of changing from moving schools at 12 back to 11, except that we are the only pyramid in the LA which changes at 13 -so there are all sorts of issues there as well.

 

And thanks, MarkWatkins, there was no need to be rude - I can read

 

But the document also says this:

"A Trust school is defined for the purposes of this document as a foundation school with a foundation acquired under the provisions of the Education and Inspections Bill 2006"

Which surely relates to the *new* type of trust school, with external partners, not the old type of foundation school, which we are.

So where does that leave us??

 

I'm sorry to be picky but I know that they will pick up on this and say 'look, we can opt out' but if we are not that sort of foundation/trust school I don't think we can

Edited March 20, 2008 by witch

[Andie]

You've probably found this yourself, but there is an organisation call Foundation & Aided Schools National Association, with a website http://www.fasna.co.uk. Governors can become members, but haven't looked at it in great detail. They also have a contact us email link. Maybe they can help??

[krb548]

Did anyone get to the bottom of all the small print and clauses out the foundation status?

 

I'm trying to work out if a school adopts this scheme are they forced to adopt the BSF rules and take on the out sourced ICT procedures?

 

From what I could see if a school opted for foundation they did not need to apply the BSF rules unless that school asked for govenernment/LEA for funding to develop & improve the buildings.

 

Can anyone shed any light on all these complications or has anyone already gone through this and can offer help & suggestions.

[Face-Man]

My experience is that you and your head are both right.

 

Here though the LA has signed up full for BSF and all the schools are involved they can only do this with the agreement of the schools governors as it is them that pay the on going annual fee for the service.

 

However the pressure to sign up is massive from the LA and PFS in our case probably would have pulled the plug had one or two schools dropped out. You also can't get the capital money for refresh without a managed service and ultimately who is going to turn down a large check to get their school buildings fixed.

 

This leads to politics with school trying to get the best deal and LA using incentives to get them to sign

[jayemm]

Sorry to bring bump this thread but only just read it.

 

I would like to point out that any school can opt out of a managed service. I have had several conversations and emails with someone at P4S.

 

The issue is that the labour government in their infinite wisdom feel that ICT managed services are the key to improving attainment at schools. To this end it was launched as part of the BSF process but the funding is mutually exclusive.

 

They give schools the opportunity to opt out and lose the majority of funding or attempt to get the funding themselves via an alternate business case which as far as I know non have been successful.

 

LA's are pressuring schools to commit to a MSP but I cannot find out why, when I speak to P4S there is no requirement for the schools to have MSP, but yet the LA's keep pressing ahead with them under a shroud of mystery.

 

They forget that they are messing with peoples jobs and a generation of students. Getting it wrong could have a cataclysmic effect on the future of education.

 

I am a firm believer of calling a spade a spade and an MSP = outsourcing, it is a phase. ICT is being outsourced by schools not by choice, eventually there will be a realisation that it was not a good idea and it will be brought back in house, either in 5 or 10 years.

 

Interestingly given the financial commitment it will require a ratification from the Governing Body of the school for the expenditure. This could have been delegated to a committee or an individual, it is likely to be defined in a financial standards type policy of the school who would need to authorise expenditure of this magnitude. It would be unusual for this to be something that a head or chair of governors could decide on their own.

[GrumbleDook]

There is no mystery as to why LAs want you to take the managed service route. It simply boils down to they need to get x number of schools signed up for it to make it financially viable for the MSP.

 

If we want to be realistic about it ... if an LA has 15 schools to cover then should one drop out it is livable ... but should 5 drop out then the quality of the bid from MSPs will be poor, and the costs high. (ok .. higher than if all 15 were involved).

 

This would mean that should the schools with top IT pull out then it actually means more work for less money.

 

However ... there are only a few schools that have got both a technical and leadership grip on IT ... and it is good to see that there are many of them who are represented on here ... but some schools that claim to be fantastic for IT may have the best tech staff in the world, but the leadership of the use of technology is pants ... and the reverse applies too.

 

Some of the wholes that most schools will fall into include lack of documentation and policies, inconsistency in provision and support, poor project / change management, a lack of integration of IT planning into school & curriculum development and not forgetting the big lump of wood schools are hit with at the moment ... poor understanding / implementation of technology to support safeguarding.

 

Without sounding cynical ... if we have so many fantastic schools around then why does EG exist? And why don't we have 20 or so copies of policies / procedures to be shared around? Then again ... that is just me sounding like a broken record. Hard to defend against MSPs when they say they can bring all this in.

 

[jayemm]

If you were given the money that is going to be given to the MSP for your school then if spent wisely this is all something that could be implemented.

 

It is not unusual for people not to want to share their policies and proceedures. I am a school governor and visit other forums relating to this and the same is true there, the policies and proceedures exist but there is a lack of willingness to share them.

 

My real issue is that if an MSP is so fantastic why do they have to be forced. Surely if schools like the sound then they would willingly take them on.

[Guest monkeyx]

Without sounding cynical ... if we have so many fantastic schools around then why does EG exist? And why don't we have 20 or so copies of policies / procedures to be shared around? Then again ... that is just me sounding like a broken record. Hard to defend against MSPs when they say they can bring all this in.

 

 

But it does sound cynical. What is your current job and function in relation to BSF please ? Are you involved in monitoring and managing BSF provision?

 

If it is so good then why force schools to sign up and make it virtually impossible to opt out!

[GrumbleDook]

Northants does not run BSF at the moment ... schools have been spoken to about the future and it is all going through the planning stages at the moment concentrating on 'Transformation' ... ie getting the education stuff right.

 

To be honest, if I was to go to each of the schools that will be involved and asked if they had everything perfect they would say no ... are some way ahead of the game and likely to be ahead of the MSP? Then the answer would be yes ... in the majority of areas. How we get it across all areas is going to be the hard bit.

 

I am not sure what my role would be for BSF in the future of it, but I am pretty tied up now with dealing with EMBC, stuff on the LA learning platform, raising the standards of IT support and management of IT support across *all* the schools in the LA (not just the handful that are to be involved in BSF), and working with other parts of the LA on IT in other educational settings.

 

We do not have a central education IT support unit here ... schools buy in from who they want ... so they already have the option of buying support in or employing their own staff. Majority of secondaries employ their own staff but contract in for specific skills. A number of our schools had a PFI build or rebuild so the cabling, etc is already covered, but IT facilities and support is not. This has led to a vast range of levels of support and facilities, with part of the issue being that not all senior leaders in schools are in a position to effectively manage their IT.

 

Some schools and their support staff don't help themselves ... and so we get stuck in the position of someone has to deal with them ... but no company wants to deal with 3 schools when they don't get a profit until they get to 6 schools. The LAs want the schools sorted ... so if the compromise is that some schools have to take a step back then that is acceptable in some places. The big downside is that if a school ticks 9 out of 10 'good' things (and excels in 6 of them) then they get dragged down.

 

I know we can all say that if a service was good then it would be bought in ... but when it is the IT manager who is controlling what is bought in and not senior leadership it is just as wrong as when senior leadership do it with no conversion with IT support. There will be some exceptions to this but people need to get used to the idea that BSF is not personal, not aimed at telling you that your systems are naff, it is financial and political, is part of a model to change how education is run and managed and only by getting involved really early do you stand a chance of getting what you want, or working on compromises.

[Ex-MGSTech]

Hard to defend against MSPs when they say they can bring all this in.

 

Ah, but in reality do they? I think the jury's out on that one!

[GrumbleDook]

Correct answer ... and their response could be "we probably have a better chance than what you don't have at the moment!" and then they talk about past successes in other LAs.