School set to refuse £14m in BSF cash

[GrumbleDook]

Shibboleth, IMS/SCORM, SIF/ZIS ... all standards that are good and admirable but each has a number of issues due to slight differences in implementation in different large scale projects.

 

Shibboleth differs from Shibboleth 2 and some places have struggled to get backwards compatibility in place ... and whilst an individual school may want to hook into Shibboleth it depends on the in-house skills ... not all schools do.

 

IMS/SCORM ... packages are created slightly differently by different providers. MS are having to sit down and work with providers to work out what the slight differences are so that SCORM/IMS resources can be put into sharepoint. Other platform providers have had similar issues in the past and so they end up partnering with a content provider ... something to be wary of when you purchase resources that are supposed to be learning platform compliant.

 

SIF/ZIS ... let's face it, we are seriously tied into how MIS companies work on this. Whilst LAs / RBCs are working on this it is often on an implementation by implementation basis. Whilst the theory is workable there is a lot of recoding that needs to be done to make it work. It also depends on what LAs / RBCs / schools actually want to link together too.

 

It is pretty simple for schools to come up with methods of hooking all their own internal bits together which is why we see some really good practice on this. MIS sql being interrogated to pull staff / student / class data into the Directory Service and the VLE. The issue comes in writing it back to the MIS DB.

 

It is hard to scale some of this though, partly due to the complexity with large amounts of accounts (Just ask EMBC schools about the UPN reconciliation tool) and partly de to each and every school thinking they know best (believe me ... some do, but some don't and have made a number balls up as a result ... this is one of the major selling points used within LA /RBC based learning platforms ... whether we agree with it or not.)

 

A national network is feasible but is a horrendously large project ... however, when you have RBCs working on it and actually succeeding it means that BSF bidders have more ammunition to show that large scale central Directory Services populating and controlling connected systems is feasible, cost effective and efficient. The arguements against need to consider whether this helps or hinders the flexibility that schools need.

[Oops_my_bad]

This is why *they* can do things that many other schools don't stand a hope in hell of doing.

 

Wow - great vote of confidence there I think you'd be suprised at what the "lesser" establishments could achieve.

[maniac]

Collaboration amongst the students and teachers shouldn't mean managed services have to be taken on board, it just means that the LA have to get their finger out and create a platform which will allow the schools to collaborate without taken over the schools IT.

 

Kent have such a system in place based on the microsoft learning gateway, and they are working in integration with school existing learning platforms as well. I think it's a good example to others as to how it can be done, and schools still retain choice.

 

You can read about it here

Mike.

[GrumbleDook]

Wow - great vote of confidence there I think you'd be suprised at what the "lesser" establishments could achieve.

 

More than happy to see examples of other schools making it work without the use of FUD.

 

BSF is a politics thing on so many levels ... the people that get the good results get listened to, those who are 'satisfactory' will not be listened to as the leadership at those schools are not in the loop enough to make changes.

 

That is the way it has been working for the last 30 years in education (the whole of the public sector actually) unless you get significant union involvement (which our unions are doing bugger all) and unions are not listened to much now anyways.

 

I keep saying to people to get examples about how much difference they make to T&L and that includes achievement / attainment. If you show that your IT expertise has helped in the difference between teh school getting good and outstanding, or satisfactory and good ... then you stand a chance of arguing your case. I've said before that you have to show accountability ... that you have to be part of the strategic vision of the school.

 

But it may not work even then ... Hackney is one example. There will be more. It varies from LA to LA, from Wave to Wave, from School to School.

 

Still ... people know my views, know that I am a fence sitter (saves you having to respond, grommit) and know that I am just a tad frustrated that for all the bravado that goes on about "We will change the world", no-one has set up a website that is anti-bsf ... no-one has called the unions to task for not getting involved ... and people expect others to do their running around for them.

[torledo]

Kent have such a system in place based on the microsoft learning gateway, and they are working in integration with school existing learning platforms as well. I think it's a good example to others as to how it can be done, and schools still retain choice.

 

You can read about it here

Mike.

 

i think the various learning gateway projects have shown the value of going with a suite of products from a single vendor, ofcourse the various MLG components are seperate products but the fact they are products from the same vendor allows ISV's and schools to build these types of solutions, because of the ability to integrate with other microsoft apps through .NET, and the wealth of documentation and support available.

 

Even propietary solutoins incorporate a standards based approach where they choose to, but i think for small-to-midsize companies the advantage is clearly in going for a single vendor in order to realize that all important TCO.

 

The .NET approach may not have had the effect of dominating the internet if that was the plan, but it's found a place in the SMB sector as IT depts. can follow a familiar programming paradigm and familiar development tools. If your a company like Microsoft who have 360 degree coverage of the back office it allows companies to go all M$ and it's not necessarily a bad thing. All this talk about shibboleth, SSO and federation is all good, but if a school goes down the route of having key Microsoft server apps and a central AD repository the local integration headaches are minimised. Ofcourse that still means you may need to invest in the tasks of integrating bespoke apps and the need for SSO solutions to integrate across the M$ back office, but this approach of vendor standardization to me has considerable benefits for those who don't want to reinvest time and training into learning these standards which aren't well documented or supported.

 

On a regional level, what's to stop schools from just setting up an ADFS server - in keeping with the M$ product standardization - and requesting outside orgs to peer with the schools ADFS.

 

Basically M$ have walloped the competition in many key areas, Sharepoint, AD, Exchange, ISA, SQL server have really dominated and gobbled market share from competitors in small and midsized IT environments. Surely it's preferable for M$ shops to pursue this type of standardization becuase of the resources available.... Even in the areas where open source has been really strong, in particular Apache and BIND, M$ is catching up from a technology perspective.

 

In the future we'll see former market leaders relegated to bit part players as M$ buy and develop their way into a particular market sector in SMB's. BI and repoting is one, CRM is another, sharepoint and instant messaging will be further developed to encompass more features....and with volume licensing the software investment coupled with the in-house skillset makes it a really compelling proposition. I think the impact of this will be clear,

 

This isn't meant to be a open source vs M$ debate, more a vendor standards vs open standards debate for small organisations who are predominantly microsft skilled. And whether these various SSO and federation projects are unnecessaruly complicating things at the school level. Blinding us with standards, updates standards, acronyms, that in the majority of cases are perhaps not needed in the predominantly M$ world of the SMB? Is it any wonder it's the universities and RBC's doing the leg work for this - they have the resources to work on these complex issues, at a local level simplicity and ease of understanding and working with the core M$ apps is more important.

[Diello]

BSF is a politics thing on so many levels ... the people that get the good results get listened to, those who are 'satisfactory' will not be listened to as the leadership at those schools are not in the loop enough to make changes.

 

BSF is about politics on all levels. Whether BSF from a Buildings, or from an ICT perspective - I've yet to hear of people going into schools, talking to all the stakeholders - SLT, teachers, other staff, students, and finding out exactly what is needed to improve that school. I'd say the majority of teachers still don't know what BSF is, it's still fairly behind-the-scenes.

 

I keep saying to people to get examples about how much difference they make to T&L and that includes achievement / attainment. If you show that your IT expertise has helped in the difference between teh school getting good and outstanding, or satisfactory and good ... then you stand a chance of arguing your case. I've said before that you have to show accountability ... that you have to be part of the strategic vision of the school.

 

Again a fair point - but has P4S done the same (which obviously they can't since they have nothing implemented that has been in place long enough to prove a positive outcome)? Since BSF isn't specific to each school, and is a one-size-fits-all approach, it fits less into being "part of the strategic vision of the school". IT is part (where I work anyway) of the SDP and 5-year plan, it factors in the needs and wants (valid wants!) of each department - to have that difference in achievement/attainment, to help the school go from good to outstanding. Our IT expertise isn't discrete, it's school-wide, shown in the success of our results by each department.

 

BSF where the school has practically no say over what it gets is not going to fit into the school SDP, 5-year plan, or individual department needs to improve T&L, and thus is not going to improve those areas for each individual school.

 

Problem is, there is no proof, since BSF hasn't happened yet - however, surely this is just a case of common sense? You can't improve things within the school, if you completely blank out asking the school what needs improving.

 

no-one has set up a website that is anti-bsf ... no-one has called the unions to task for not getting involved ... and people expect others to do their running around for them.

 

Indeed - in a way it's propriety vs. open source. The vocal minority vs. the silent majority. BSF has Gov and private business support, millions in funding for publicity, and advertising, which they can make say whatever the heck they like. Those of us actually in the schools, who actually know what goes on, what's needed, are distributed across the country, and have no huge cash reserves, no support of companies or the Gov. Getting that organised and giving it a loud voice is practically impossible as those how can shout the loudest...

 

Still, when has anything in this country actually been done for the good of it?

Edited July 20, 2008 by Diello

[torledo]

BSF is about politics on all levels. Whether BSF from a Buildings, or from an ICT perspective - I've yet to hear of people going into

 

 

 

. BSF has Gov and private business support, millions in funding for publicity,

and advertising, which they can make say whatever the heck they like. Those of us actually in the schools, who actually know what goes on, what's needed, are distributed across the country, and have no huge cash reserves, no support of companies or the Gov. Getting that organised and giving it a loud voice is practically impossible as those how can shout the loudest...

 

Still, when has anything in this country actually need done for the good of it?

 

It just sounds like many an outsourcing contract. The business analysts and suits who are resoinsible for thrashing out the service contracts don't have an appreciation or understanding for the day-to-day. Plus the govt. and local govt. bods have this affinity with private sector involvement, not realising that waste, ineffiicency are not exclusive to the public sector, as many a tabloid would have the population believe. So those who have responsibility for managing the IT budget for schools are happier to hand over money and to encourage private investment in IT service delivery who promise efficiecny and cost savings that are often spureous,

 

The consortiums interest in shareholders and directors means that they can put together a proposal that talks a good game about service and delivery, but the reality is for those delivering the IT service is that the most cost effective and efficient way of deliveing a service is as near as a one size fits all....that means standardising on the products, processes, and contact center. It doesn't matter that certain processes under a manged BSF agreement don't represent good value for money or seem nonsensical due to the red tape....but that's not the concern of the suits. They've been told by some guys with a powerpoint presentation that it works.

 

There are worse examples of outsourced IT contracts, but they very rarely deliver in the ways imagined.

 

The good news for the school in this case is that the IT dept. can get on with doing what there doing without interference from an MSP and without the uncertainty of their future roles that comes with being TUPed....there aren't many school leader who hold their support staff in such high regard and are willing and able to do something that puts the morale of staff and quality of IT pupils to ahead of the financial incentives. I think by going it alone the autonomy brings far greater benefits, innovation and i no doubt will deliver on best value over a 10 or 15 year period.

Edited July 20, 2008 by torledo

[beeswax]

has anyone else tried registering a domain name with bsf in the title? pretty difficult.

[GrumbleDook]

A couple of legits and a few squatters.

 

The best chance is not to use something that may be deemed 'official' but to go for an 'anti' website, or better still .. a 'truths' website.

 

bsftruths.org.uk is available and would cover a number of areas ... it could be sections that deal with IT Managed Services, building services, T&L / Teachers, Leaders & Management ... there is so much there that can be done with it and lots of information without relying on FUD too.

 

Whoever does it would have to spend considerable time talking with lots of unions, schools in pathfinder waves, deal with anonymous contributions from those already TUPEd over, be willing to take on the Govt agencies and deal with their spin as well as their substance ... and then be able to come back with better solutions (with sufficient evidence, or at least evidence to challenge what is being put forward by Becta, P4S, DCFS, Academies, etc).

[Midget]

BSFMadeEasy.com and .co.uk are available as is WhatisthisBSf.com

[SpuffMonkey]

Anyone else see this one

 

35bn revamp will produce generation of mediocre schools | Politics | The Guardian

 

About how rubbish BSF rebuilds are.

[GrumbleDook]

This has been said from the Pathfinder stage ...

 

The problem with building designs is that architects and builders get involved ... and everything has to look swish.

 

Then again, speaking with a director at one builder firm who refuses to touch any PFI work at all ... he reckons that the problem is not having enough working models. If you want a house or office built, then there are lots of good examples out there without having to be inventive ... it seems like lots of new public buildings need to be full of flair (or is it flare?)!!!!

 

A self-proclaimed cynic said to me that when you are looking at architects ... you have some that say that "education is at the heart of what we are as a society and that is why I dedicate myself to it ..." and then say the same about local Govt building, football stadia, etc ...

 

I know that the attitude of some schools involved in the 'poor' design areas is one of 'we are getting something better than that asbestos ridden flea-pit so we won't moan too loud' ...

[torledo]

This has been said from the Pathfinder stage ...

 

The problem with building designs is that architects and builders get involved ... and everything has to look swish.

 

Then again, speaking with a director at one builder firm who refuses to touch any PFI work at all ... he reckons that the problem is not having enough working models. If you want a house or office built, then there are lots of good examples out there without having to be inventive ... it seems like lots of new public buildings need to be full of flair (or is it flare?)!!!!

 

A self-proclaimed cynic said to me that when you are looking at architects ... you have some that say that "education is at the heart of what we are as a society and that is why I dedicate myself to it ..." and then say the same about local Govt building, football stadia, etc ...

 

I know that the attitude of some schools involved in the 'poor' design areas is one of 'we are getting something better than that asbestos ridden flea-pit so we won't moan too loud' ...

 

A lot of local govt. redevelopment has tried to be about making a statement, create something iconic and all that jazz....unfortunately - and i've mentioned this before - modern designers/architects haven't the foggiest when it comes to new builds. When it's about redeveloping an old water mill or victorian factory for plush city centre living they manage to do a half decent job becuase they don't have to think of something from scratch. And these days doing a build from scratch demands putting flair into something hence the trend is to put a lot of glass in and add the odd weird angle....i'm not against the use of glass to create swish, distinctive looking buildings. But it's become so common than it's no longer adds any uniqueness.

 

Much of what's being done by councils are the future eyesores, the buildings that future generations will want pulling down. Much like the brutalist architecture of the 70's and expansion of flyovers and ringroads ruined many a city centre, when you get the design of a building that is intented to be a focal point wrong it inflicts itself on the local environment and twenty, thirty years hence it becomes detested because the design doesn't age well. That's the importance of the design of the school building, as much as schools are designed to be funcitonal and fulfill a purpose it has an impact on the local environment and can in some instances become a focal point of an area. Balls that up and a disservice is being done to local residents.

[Butuz]

Anyone else see this one

 

35bn revamp will produce generation of mediocre schools | Politics | The Guardian

 

About how rubbish BSF rebuilds are.

 

Wow thats a pretty shocking article! Thank god articles like this are now coming out!!!

 

Butuz

[Dos_Box]

With this amount of money we can free schools from the burden of procuring and managing complex ICT systems.

 

Yes, but most schools have highly trained, skilled and motivated IT support departments already who can achieve all of this for a fraction of the costs on a per site basis. And I would suggest that most schools will end up with networks a lot less complex than those they currently run!