You guys won't be happy... this week's BSF letters in Computing

[GrumbleDook]

This is one of the problems ... I also don't believe that any cock ups, etc are intentional ... I believe that it comes out of poor management and leadership of IT in schools, poor training for support staff, consistent underfunding as grants get moved around to fit the needs of the school without taking into account sustainability or even ensuring that equipment / infrastructure is fit for purpose.

 

Grommit and I agree that unless someone comes along that has both technical and education knowledge to grab senior managlement by the scruff of their neck and make the realise what they have got and what it can do with it all, then the school suffers.

 

Yes, there are many schools out there that seriously know there stuff and have a positive impact on the school ... but is it an impact that affects the 3 areas that I keep mentioning ... T&L, leadership and administration, achievement and attainment. That is hard to measure and there are too many schools that don't have a grasp on what can be done, what needs to be done and how it can be evaluated.

 

Like it or not OFSTED look at the above 3 and use them as a starting point. I am not saying that the majority of people intentionally block things or cause problems. Again, people (including me) will mention that it is in rough thirds. 1/3 are struggling ... 1/3 are on the ball in some areas but not in others ... 1/3 are winning with it all ... and then you have the top of the shop in this group, who are pushing the boundaries and being used as examples of how things can be done.

 

Yes, there are people out there that only care about going in to work, picking up their pay and trying to do as little as possible ... not because they are trying to be efficient but just plain lazy ... and yes, this is a small minority, but it is a small minority that can often fit into the stereotype that works against us.

 

Perhaps I have it wrong (and I am happy for people to say that I am), but the general situation is that most members in schools can and will be easily overridden by the senior managlement at their school, and even heads of departments or teachers in the worst case scenarios. There are not that many here who are in a position of senior managlement and are often not in a position to make major changes to how the school works.

 

This is the problem ... until you get that leverage, wither directly or indirectly then it is hard to show what you are truly worth.

[broc]

Perhaps I have it wrong (and I am happy for people to say that I am), but the general situation is that most members in schools can and will be easily overridden by the senior managlement at their school, and even heads of departments or teachers in the worst case scenarios. There are not that many here who are in a position of senior managlement and are often not in a position to make major changes to how the school works.

 

This is the problem ... until you get that leverage, wither directly or indirectly then it is hard to show what you are truly worth.

 

I think you are 'spot-on' with your view about senior management overriding ICT support staff & network managers but quite frankly I would expect them to at times, it's their job.

 

In my job as network manager I regularly have quite tough discussions with my line manager (Deputy HT) and although I stand my ground I do so in the knowledge that at any time she could just say 'do it'. We both know this but despite that we can generally reach agreement as we have a common aim of achieving the best we can for our students.

 

I am not so sure there will be any room for discussions of this sort post-BSF, particularly when one 'party' in the discussion is rather more motivated by profit than the interests of the students?

[Friez]

What you've just said strengthens my argument. Management generally override a lot of NM's, undermining their expertise and knowledge, and only the most fortuanate are able to get onto the LT.

 

It is not exactly like every NM can insist to their LT that they should be their equal and on the LT too, and chances are a lot of NM's would be laughed at for the mere suggestion.

 

One could argue a managed service will not allow a LT to do this however it is still not an ideal solution and would still punish those that want and CAN make a difference.

 

What's really needed is a serious shakeup of school management. Appointments of ICT Managers (not just a random Teacher) who have strong understanding from both the Technical and the Educational side of things and put in place guidelines, policies and targets that must be met and adhered to, providing a measurable outcome from the end of it all.

 

Spending huge amounts of taxpayer money for someone else to deliver the ICT provision just trades one set of problems for another and doesn't really help solve anything.

 

A LT that doesn't give a damn about Technology and doesn't utilise anything the NM offers is still not going to with a Managed Service. A Managed service can throw technology at a school until they're blue in the face, it doesn't stop the school from using Typewriters instead.

 

This isn't a problem with network managers or technicians, this is a management problem within schools and doesn't seem to be addressed with BSF whatsoever.

[Lee_K_81]

It is not exactly like every NM can insist to their LT that they should be their equal and on the LT too, and chances are a lot of NM's would be laughed at for the mere suggestion.

 

I was speaking about career advancement with my line manager (ass head - very fitting abreviation) and I said that the only real progression I had with in schools was Senior Leadership. His response was basically:

 

.............blinks a few times .......... I don't know of ANY schools where that is the case.......

[/Quote]

 

Yep, thanks for your confidence. Thats why schools suffer holding on to staff. Once you get to NM/ Sys manager there's nowhere else to go but out of education. When i started here i was a graduate, with no real world experience or knowledge of the education sector. I've built up my skills, gained the knowledge, know how schools work, i do timetabling and assessment as well as some stuff with exams, BUT i (and i'm sure other NMs are the same) dont only think about it on an educational aspect. We try to find out what new technologies are out there, how they can be made to work in a school. We're highly trained professionals, treated as "do-ers" not leaders.

[GrumbleDook]

NMs (or former NMs) on SLT ... it is rare, as the usual associate staff member on SLT would be the bursar / business manager.

 

I know of around 20 in England, but know 5 of these personally. We are rare, but appreciated.

[broc]

Steady on....

 

It has taken schools a long time to accept that Bursars and Business Managers should be part of the leadership team, now you expect schools to include Network Managers too? Next you will be asking for Site Managers to join

 

I suspect the reason so few schools have people like grumbledook on their leadership team is because most fail to realise the contribution that 'professional' support staff could make in improving schools if only given the opportunity.

 

I know of too many teachers & SLT who think that only 'they' are capable of improving school performance. All support staff are expected to do is support them.

 

In my own situation I am happy enough simply doing my job as a network manager; the fact is I could do a lot more given the chance, having worked in ICT for a very long time in a wide variety of roles including systems design & project management.

[torledo]

 

This isn't a problem with network managers or technicians, this is a management problem within schools and doesn't seem to be addressed with BSF whatsoever.

 

Outsource the leadership team ? Now that would be an idea

[Friez]

Outsource the leadership team ? Now that would be an idea

 

I wasn't suggesting that and it would probably be just as poor an idea as outsourcing technical staff. However, purely from a BOFH standpoint I like the way you think!

[GrumbleDook]

Outsource the leadership team ? Now that would be an idea

 

It's been done and proven to be reasonably successful ... it is can be done in a variety of ways, but a common one is Hard Federation, where a successful school takes over a smaller, local failing school. Examples of this are Academies where you have two of them partnered ... but they have an Executive Principal overseeing both and both LTs have close links.

[Friez]

It's been done and proven to be reasonably successful ... it is can be done in a variety of ways, but a common one is Hard Federation, where a successful school takes over a smaller, local failing school. Examples of this are Academies where you have two of them partnered ... but they have an Executive Principal overseeing both and both LTs have close links.

 

 

That sort of sounds like an additional tier ontop of an existing LT to me? Or am I misunderstanding that?

[GrumbleDook]

I think we have to go to a business analogy here.

 

Company A is successful and make a chunk of money (in school terms gets top results and outstanding at OFSTED). Company B is not doing well and is taking subsidies from shareholders (in schools term it is getting funding and not producing the results) and the people running it are in trouble.

 

The shareholders of Company B can replace the management of Company B but know that the whole business needs to be changed, then they realise that they are also the shareholders of Company A ... now wouldn't it be a good idea to take Company B and make it a subsidiary of Company A.

 

To do this they take the top person at Company A and put him in charge of the overall strategy of both companies, trying to get all the good things from A to B, where appropriate. This also means changes at Company B ... and Company A does the interviews, sorts out the structure, etc ...

 

Both companies work closely together, buying stock from the same suppliers to save some money, sharing Govt grants ....

 

The only extra layer is the Exec Principal in this example ...

 

In some schools they don't even have this ... but the Head of the good school in a hard federation can be the boss of the Head in the other school.

 

To some extent there are similarities between different setups ... but each one may have unique things in place, mainly as the needs of each school is different and so you have to put in place what is going to have the best chance of making a positive change.

 

Does this make it a bit clearer?

[Friez]

It does, thanks. It sounds like a slightly different to the scenario presented by BSF though. With BSF even 'Company A' gets taken over, which is a baffling move to be sure!

[GrumbleDook]

Sorry ... I only did it from the Academies / federation point of view as the point was raised about Leadership Teams getting outsourced / taken over.

 

If we go back to the various companies, A through to Z that the shareholders own ... some do well, some do bad, some do ok ...

 

The shareholders have to work out some way to get them all working well. They look at the buildings they are in, and some are falling down and not fit for purpose. They look at the IT and how well stuff is put in and if it is making a difference to the business. They come up with some pre-defined targets and then work out what can be done from a central strategy and what needs to be done on a company by company basis.

 

They work out that since they are borrowing money to get this sorted they need to give the builders a big say in things ... so let's do that centrally ... they also realise that they have limited ways of measuring how well IT is performing and what a difference it makes. In that case it is best to start with a level playing field and go from there.

 

This also gives them a chance to make sure that the people running the companies are switched on to what the new buildings and new kit can do ... so yes, they will make changes if needed. This varies from school to school and some company bosses might reapply for their own job. Nothing wrong with a bit of a shake up.

 

The downsides?

 

Well ... Company A is good ... damn good ... they have people that do R&D as part of their daily job and the company gives them the flexibility to do this as it has proven to increase profits. However, it can be high risk and the shareholders worry about high risk activities. They want to allow it but want to make sure that it doesn't mess anything else up. I guess some of that R&D will be lost unless the company boss is really careful about making sure the shareholders know how good it is and what a difference it makes.

 

Company B is quite good too ... in fact they already have a couple of small suppliers that know exactly what the company needs and can deliver consistently. But the small supplier is not on the list that the shareholders have of suppliers ... and so the outside group that looks after the supply now doesn't include them. Partly because they are an unknown quantity, partly due to the outside group have their own shareholders who want them to be profitable.

 

Company Y ... they are in dire straights. They have always got the worst clients, the ones that others won't deal with because you don't get good profits from ... the ones that use your kit and damage it without repaying you for the damage, the ones that often just drop out of the system anyway so you see no return on the investment. The new buildings for this company don't stay new for long and the kit in there does not last. However, the shareholders only gave so much money out to spent to start with. There isn't anymore unless Company Y dips into other pockets ... staff salary, etc. Company Y is a high risk and so the outside group has to force them to do things in a particular way to make sure the shareholders are happy.

 

And then you get Company Z. This is the company that looks after itself really ... any profit it makes it invests in itself so the shareholder don't see anything from it other than it is a success. They are now having to join the rest of the companies ... they don't like it because even though this company may have the best R&D or the best ROI, they are going to have to change at least some of their methods to fit in.

 

This is the company that might decide to go for a management buyout, with the support from other groups, but not always with the support or investment of shareholders. This means that they have limited money for IT or Buildings ... a high risk for all involved.

 

I think this is a fair analogy, a bit rough in places but sort of sets it out.