Is our network really too slow...?

[Wave9_Lee]

That's correct. I contacted a chap at the DFE who investigated it for us, but ultimately replied that as we hadn't failed our last Ofsted, we couldn't get it. It's a massively perverse incentive.

'If' you accept there's a finite amount of money, or at least a prolonged phasing is required, then there has to be a way to allocate and prioritise I guess. If there was no criteria or large, succesful schools were getting the benefit in advance of poorly equipped/supported schools, there'd be an equivalent outcry I imagine. I would think that as they deal with 'failing' schools, then the criteria will change slightly. At least there's a 'standard' albeit slightly over-specced, and there's 'some' money. Surely better than nothing.

 

And someone's previous argument holds too, in that if you argue that good IT is critical for good outcomes, then you can't argue against poorly rated schools getting priority.

 

Perhaps for a different thread (and sorry for taking it off-topic) but not sure there are any easy answers for funding.

 

Here's a thought - as the specification is quite good, there's a lot of adequate wifi and switches being replaced in schools, perhaps it's worth Edugeek or this community creating a sub thread, or market place where some of the non-qualifying schools can benefit form the outgoing equipment etc. MATs are doing this within their own Trust, but smaller MATs or individual schools could probably do with some free/cheap kit.

 

Anyway now we're definitely off-topic, so will leave it there!

[DrCheese]

I appreciate that they need some way of setting criteria, but it's a bizarre metric to use as it's not taking into account the thing it's looking to resolve, which is a poor or outdated IT infrastructure.

I accept that educational outcomes are our core business, but you can have brand new shiny schools that have rubbish outcomes & poor Ofsted's - Likewise have old schools with ancient IT kit getting outstanding.