Prevent Damage to IT Equipment in Classrooms/Suites

[mikeprice]

The NUT are only against them cameras because it makes their life more difficult if they end up having to defend one of their clients found guilty by actions caught on camera. Only an issue if there's something to hide; the majority of sensible human beings will have no problems with this as it's protecting them too.

 

I don't agree with that - in my experience it is the potential for SMT to snoop on teachers and use this judge teachers based on observation criteria that are supposed to only be used in pre-notified officially observed lessons.

This sort of observation also does not give the teacher any opportunity to give the observer any background for the lesson.

e.g. I used to teacher Year 8 databases by getting the kids to create a paper data collection form for info about the other members of the class - then spend the rest of the lesson going round and filling it in until they had data on every other member of the class. The result was apparently total chaos but the kids enjoyed themselves, talked a lot - but gathered the data effectively and learned a lot about data collection.

I had an interesting discussion with the deputy head one year when he 'popped into' my classroom twice in one month when this lesson was going on (I had several Year 8 classes at the time). Hence he had seen 2 of my lessons within a few weeks which seemed totally chaotic. But at least he had entered the room and could 'feel' the atmosphere and I knew he had been there. If this had been done via a camera I suspect I would have had problems

 

The schools I have taught in (as opposed to operating as an IT Tech once I saw the light) have been very good in this was - some of the schools I have worked in since becoming an IT Tech would not have been so open. It is this style of management that the Unions suspect will effectively bully staff using cameras

[6Foot2]

The first thing to do is realise that blame won't work. Teachers don't accept blame and nor will it be supported by SLT. Blame causes people to be defensive and panic, it won't stop the damage but will mean that every conversation from now on will start with a teacher telling you how it must have already been like that.

 

You need to start by stopping access to the rooms. Unless there is a teacher there don't open it. Make sure it's closed, stick a camera on the door. This is one area where you can tangibly blame people.

Improve the culture. Ban games in the rooms, make sure kids are sat down, make the room so utterly boring that kids only use it for school work. The moment they aren't using it productively they need to leave.

Let them stew. Once it's broken that's it. You can't leave it in the room as a showpiece you need to remove it to a secure location. This will impact lessons and teachers need to figure out organically why it's happening (Because you can't tell teachers)

 

There is no blame here, but your suggested approach won't work here. Staff (all levels) will SAY they support it but the moment it becomes inconvenient to them the support melts away.

 

There is one thing I do agree with:

 

...a teacher telling you how it must have already been like that...

 

[Areku]

I've Often gone against our SMT when they have tried to use data/images for things they where not collected for in policy. If i found a member of SMT was using the CCTV for anything bar student behaviour / Security (as stated in our CCTV policy). then i would report that SMT to the councils Data protection team. Just because the are SMT does not put them above the law.

 

As for the other option blocking access to rooms, we have done that too (cctv helps but isn't the save-all), and when asked why we are not allowing access we straight up tell them that they haven't been looked after.

 

Maybe I just like being awkward

[mikeprice]

I've Often gone against our SMT when they have tried to use data/images for things they where not collected for in policy. If i found a member of SMT was using the CCTV for anything bar student behaviour / Security (as stated in our CCTV policy). then i would report that SMT to the councils Data protection team. Just because the are SMT does not put them above the law.

 

As for the other option blocking access to rooms, we have done that too (cctv helps but isn't the save-all), and when asked why we are not allowing access we straight up tell them that they haven't been looked after.

 

Maybe I just like being awkward

 

I am doubtful about how much you can really do this. If SMT have access to CCTV for proper security/behaviour reasons - what is stopping them going on fishing expeditions to check up on teachers unchecked?

I suppose some systems will log when and who the images are accessed (is that English??) but if they go on and won't tell you why what can you do

and should you have to check who has accessed the cameras every day??

 

Maybe this will work OK in your current environment - but things change and giving people the ability to access the images can be the start of a slippery slope - the brakes may work now but in the future a change in management or IT staff may change the braking mechanism

[Areku]

ahh there we have it, our policy has 2 named contacts who are allowed to access the CCTV, neither of them are members of SMT, and both are trained in the GDPR principles.

.

So a deviation from this would mean the governors authorizing a change in policy

Edited January 18, 2019 by Areku

[mikeprice]

ahh there we have it, our policy has 2 named contacts who are allowed to access the CCTV, neither of them are members of SMT, and both are trained in the GDPR principles.

.

So a deviation from this would mean the governors authorizing a change in policy

 

Exactly - so a new dynamic and enthusiastic member of SMT - or a new Head - comes along determined to weed out (sorry train up) the weaker teachers. Then they go to the Governors and deliver an impassioned and dynamic and convincing road map for the improvement of the whole school and 'for the sake of the kids' - basically a load of bull disguised as looking for training opportunities for the weaker/older teachers

 

And - look - the policy has been changed without thought of GDPR - and it's all for the good of the school and that is the important thing

 

AND - purely by coincidence - they have got rid of the older and more experience (i.e. expensive) teachers and replaced them with cheaper newly qualified teachers

 

Which is what I meant above about changing the braking mechanism

 

edit - is there an emoji for cynical old git????

 

edit 2 - changed "with thought of GDPR" to "GDPR to without thought of GDPR" - keyboard comms problem between mind and keys

Edited January 18, 2019 by mikeprice

[TomHD]

Ban games in the rooms, make sure kids are sat down, make the room so utterly boring that kids only use it for school work.

 

Bit harsh

[Archipelego1]

All very interesting posts, thanks everyone for taking the time to reply so far.

 

I, kind of, have the support of our Senior Team. In so much as they agree that Staff should be helping prevent damage. The problem is, Teachers pushing back and saying they don't have time to do the checks I've suggested, with all the other end of lesson initiatives they're asked to carry out.

 

I think most teachers think, look, it's only a mouse. Get it replaced. The problem is, they don't fully appreciate that this becomes part of a bigger behavior issue.

[DrBeaker]

All very interesting posts, thanks everyone for taking the time to reply so far.

 

I, kind of, have the support of our Senior Team. In so much as they agree that Staff should be helping prevent damage. The problem is, Teachers pushing back and saying they don't have time to do the checks I've suggested, with all the other end of lesson initiatives they're asked to carry out.

 

I think most teachers think, look, it's only a mouse. Get it replaced. The problem is, they don't fully appreciate that this becomes part of a bigger behavior issue.

 

Would be interesting to see what everyone else thinks, but that's a classroom management problem (student vandalism of working IT equipment) looking for a technical solution IMHO and it's a cop-out trying to get IT to fix it for them. It's a combination of lack of respect from students and teachers towards the IT team and lazy, bad management.

 

You saw my post on the subject - imagine how much of my time and effort over the years that took. Still with no solution and as I looked at it - no "convictions" for the crimes committed. Sadly in the end, you had to give up and accept it as part of the job. Just imagine how much wastage over the years there is due to this .

 

The only thing is take a tip of some other posters here like I've done from their posts - track how much this damage costs over time and present it to SLT. Then maybe they'll take notice, maybe not.

Edited January 18, 2019 by DrBeaker

[mikeprice]

Imagine how it would be viewed if a pupil broke a window during a class - people would be horrified

 

but dragging a compass across a monitor - oh that's an IT issue

[DrBeaker]

Imagine how it would be viewed if a pupil broke a window during a class - people would be horrified

 

but dragging a compass across a monitor - oh that's an IT issue

 

Well it's generally an extra £10-20 for a hard glass TFT versus a normal one. So there is a real-world cost attached to the damage. Especially in schools with tight IT budgets, e.g. in a typical IT suite paying an extra £300 for that feature as a preventative measure, could pay for some kit in another classroom.

 

Litter, swearing, bullying, etc are dealt with under student behaviour policies - why is IT the exception? I find it very odd yet an indicator of how IT is viewed in schools - as unimportant.

Edited January 18, 2019 by DrBeaker

[ricki]

The management only start to deal with it once they see the costs. Your time is not seen as a cost as they already pay for it

[DrBeaker]

The management only start to deal with it once they see the costs. Your time is not seen as a cost as they already pay for it

 

And that right there is spot on. It's very indicative of how unskilled and unwise some management and SLT "leaders" are, in that they really have no clue how to lead.

[mikeprice]

And that right there is spot on. It's very indicative of how unskilled and unwise some management and SLT "leaders" are, in that they really have no clue how to lead.

 

That is a problem in many 'industries' such as education. Just because you are good at job A (e.g. teaching) then you get promoted several times and end up doing Job M (e.g. headTeacher) but in reality the 2 jobs are very different and require different skill sets.

[mavhc]

Someone's got to pay for it, ask SMT if they want it to be the parents, the child, the teacher, or the department the teacher is in.

 

Charging departments is one way to get people closer to the source of the problem to care.

 

The last teacher scheduled to use the room is charged if they don't report the damage at the start of the lesson. Anyone who doesn't report their own damage is charged double. If the teacher knows who did it the child/parent is charged, if not, the department.

[ricki]

Don't forget charging for shipping and labour

[mikeprice]

Sounds good - I've never worked in a school where this would work

 

The school where I worked for longest had an IT budget - which we would exceed most years due to 'unexpected expenses' - we would just ask to spend the money anyway and it was always agreed

Not very good management - but it meant the computer were always fixed - eventually (after someone bothered to report them etc etc)

[TomHD]

That is a problem in many 'industries' such as education. Just because you are good at job A (e.g. teaching) then you get promoted several times and end up doing Job M (e.g. headTeacher) but in reality the 2 jobs are very different and require different skill sets.

 

This is one of the main reasons I didn't resist academisation... It's nice to have someone at the top with proven management skills rather than, as you say, a class teacher "promoted" to leader of an organistation... I am always very careful between my use of SLT vs SMT! There's a massive difference between leadership and management!

[HFloyd]

I've only worked in my school for just under 2 years, this problem seems to grow and grow each term. Two of our rooms have CCTV, but even then it can take allot of time out of our day to trek through all the footage.

 

I like the idea of charging a department, seems that could be the way to go. But then again we've had laptops broken and even wonder off, nothing is done.

 

As stated by other users here, it always comes down to staffing, we can try to enforce as much as we like... But seems like a sinking ship.

[strawberry]

 

I, kind of, have the support of our Senior Team.

 

Lets be frank, if you had their support then this would have been dealt with by now. We all know SMT can make things happen when they want too, all you have is a general agreement that damage is bad. What you don't have is a plan or support to stop it. I'd suggest what you do now is accept that you can't make this happen, sit back and watch and wait for SMT to take the action.

[Davit2005]

All very interesting posts, thanks everyone for taking the time to reply so far.

 

I, kind of, have the support of our Senior Team. In so much as they agree that Staff should be helping prevent damage. The problem is, Teachers pushing back and saying they don't have time to do the checks I've suggested, with all the other end of lesson initiatives they're asked to carry out.

 

I think most teachers think, look, it's only a mouse. Get it replaced. The problem is, they don't fully appreciate that this becomes part of a bigger behavior issue.

 

It's not only the damage but also effects the next user of the equipment.

 

 

We did have this issue at a school then we started charging the department for damage and it stopped. I've even seen the trackpad buttons gauged out of laptops, there is jus no excuse.

[mavhc]

Time spent monitoring vs cost to replace. If someone isn't being charged to replace then they're less likely to spend time monitoring. Exception is when it's stuff that only they use, because then they'll be affected by it being broken. Tragedy of the Commons

[mikeprice]

On the same note - but sadder - several years ago I caught one of the 'usual suspects' wrecking a keyboard

 

Reported it to SMT who talked to him etc etc

 

They then came back to me and said they would have to leave it there - they could have called his Dad (Mum hadn't been around since he was very little) but they were unwilling to do that as Dad would probably have just beaten the carp out of the kid

 

and yes - Social Services were involved - but the kid was his Dad's carer as well

It was just added to the list of things to report to Social Services at the next meeting

 

sad - but complex

[DrBeaker]

On the same note - but sadder - several years ago I caught one of the 'usual suspects' wrecking a keyboard

 

Reported it to SMT who talked to him etc etc

 

They then came back to me and said they would have to leave it there - they could have called his Dad (Mum hadn't been around since he was very little) but they were unwilling to do that as Dad would probably have just beaten the carp out of the kid

 

and yes - Social Services were involved - but the kid was his Dad's carer as well

It was just added to the list of things to report to Social Services at the next meeting

 

sad - but complex

 

Interesting angle - that would be a safeguarding issue then and one I'll be honest I never thought of. Perhaps some students do it to get the attention they're not getting at home. OR as an attempt TO get the attention of staff to point out something that is going on at home? Intriguing.

 

If that were the case then the SLT and school should be monitoring IT suite damage even more closely, to link in with the Safeguarding. Or is that us in IT support being ahead of the curve yet again?

[LTurner3692]

Surly that depends on the school doesnt it? but i never really looked at it like that!