Thursday, 01 June 2006 - Meeting At NAACE Offices.

[russdev]

The meeting was very successful and has formed good basis in which to build some kind of working relationship between NAACE and EduGeek.net and what was apparent was that there are more than a few areas of common interest such as managed services, CPD and making ICT in education a profession and mot just an add on to the school.

More formal minutes will be posted at later date this article is mainly to give you informal feedback and to start getting answers to various things brought up in at the meeting.

 

An exciting idea that NAACE have started on is an “NACCE Mark’ for people working with ICT In Education it was recognised that while schools have the ICTMark there is nothing for individual staff to use as basis of being recognised for role they are doing be that LSA, Teachers or technical staff. So idea is this award people can work towards with a lot of it being self review etc but problem NAACE face is that how LSA uses ICT is different to how ICT teacher would and again they are different to a Network Manager. So it was decided that the mark could not transfer if you change your job role in major way i.e if you get mark as LSA and then become a network manager or teacher if that happens you would have to reapply for the mark for that new role.

 

Attached with this article is outline from NAACE of what mark will be and what in basic terms what sort of work is needed how existing qualifications fit into the mark etc They would like feedback from us so please do post on forum or PM me.

 

Also NAACE are currently in talk with training suppliers to provide a formal training track for people working with ICT in education and they also working with CISCO who are in middle of creating there foundation degree for ICT education sector with Central University of England.

 

Also we talked about managed services as this is big issue facing ICT Support staff NAACE are currently writing a document on managed services and while at meeting I gave feedback received on member’s posts I also feel it would be worth us writing something formally on EduGeek.net views and sending it to NAACE and a draft on this will be posted soon for your comments.

 

NACCE would also like us to found out how many members of Edugeek.net are members of NAACE and they would also provide something written down on benefits of becoming a member. The other questions I got sent to me ask are being emailed and NAACE would provide answers to them.

 

Also there was agreement that we share events with each other so both naace events and edugeek.net events got promoted to both memberships.

 

Also we want ideas on joined up projects that both NAACE and EduGeek.net can work on so let us known and depending on project ideas we maybe we can find funding to a project but remember that all projects will need to link into a educational element of some kind (as is life) but give us ideas and we can try and work on them.

 

 

naacemark_for_it_pro.pdf

[russdev]

bump come on must have a view on this can be good or bad?

 

Russ

[russdev]

so very alone...

 

:sleepy2:

[GrumbleDook]

lol ....

 

I have to admit to being very interested in the NAACEMark for IT Pros ... it is similar to the LAs 'Leading Professional' but open to anyone.

 

The linking of calendars would be nice ... and access to shared information wold be good to.

 

I am in NAACE, but mainly so I can get info on what the real pioneers in IT in education are doing ... it isn't just a group of LEA advisors anymore.

 

Part of the problem is that for most members they may not see a relevance about why they might want to work with NAACE or be NAACE members ... perhaps getting NAACE to do a short summary of discussions on their mailing lists or from meetings might help.

[russdev]

how would you improve the naccemark for it pro what thing would you like to see anything that should not be there?

 

russ

[Ric_]

@Russdev: From reading what you have written, it does indeed sound like a good idea. However, I am unsure how easy it will be to implement... it would require a great deal of effort for me to push it through at work and, as you know, there's only me there to do everything as it is so spare time is at a premium.

[kingswood]

I think they as much admit that it would be kind of a subjective assessment of a person's technical ability- and that's why I suppose they preface each point with "..conforming to relevant school procedures.."

 

That could be a problem- unless we use a framework of skills level (enter BECTAs Framework here) then how will the mark mean anything to a new employer (that *is* a question, not a point- amd I know the PDF document says that too)?

 

At the moment though it's hard for schools with little IT experience or knowledge of the industry to assess a technician's ability to meet certain technical standards in absence of industry qualifications and/or experience. The qualifications are there for the taking, and adding something like NAACE *in addition* to those qualifications would be a nice touch.

[russdev]

right

 

i suppose through you would start and get it yourself then once got mark for yourself say good idea for other people.

 

Also there is added bonus most of it is self review...

 

russ

[GrumbleDook]

For support staff it could be seen to be a badge of accolade ... possibly even something that can be used during performance management or salry reviews ... if you see what I mean.

[kingswood]

I think what these schemes really say to me is that ICT in schools is in a mess. It doesn't look like anyone really has an idea of how to regulate ICT in schools or how to manage or support ICT staff in schools; we don't know in addition to that how to monitor/manage/recognise skills level and we haven't got a uniform pay grade system that we can look at relative to skills or years of experience.

 

A NAACE mark, mostly self review (if you have the time) would help in a lot of these areas but is still subjective (i.e. focused on the requirements of that particular school and therefore almost irrelevant to any other school as employer). BECTAs framwork of competencies is a good step in the right direction, but it is rarely adhered to or used. I had to tell my Systems Manager at the time that BECTA actually *have* a web site dedicated to cooking up job descriptions and looking at skills levels!

 

Pay is an issue across the board- and when management ideas come from the ether like this my initial thought after a knackering day at work is "sod it- that's crap". Of course anything that can be used as leverage (those badges are nice ;-) will help- and if this will genuinely help then I will contribute and support and do the work to get it. But if it will be futile and overly subjective and just * be another badge* then I haven't the time to do it.

 

Keep up the good work men. I don't know where you get the energy from but I'm with ya in spirit :-)

[russdev]

@kingswood

 

i think that is why they must make it link into becta tech standards.

 

Also this mark means at least goes with the fact you can work in education setting and ict support person which having industry qualification dost...

 

think awrd must go hand in hand with industry qualification

 

russ

[russdev]

I suppose what would be useful is this mark to be included as to go along side ictmark at least then got some way of motavating schools into buying into

 

russ

[GrumbleDook]

If the foundation degree also contains the IT Pro NAACEMark then that would also be a selling point to techies ... and so to schools ... and schools that want to go the next step and get the full ICTMark have a stepping stone.

 

We'll have to see what the new materials for SLICT and TeamSLICT are like with regards to ICTMark. When I get them I will see if I can share them around.

[kingswood]

I'm going to join NAACE and see what's going on. But yes- if the foundation degree is what you go for and the IT Pro NAACE Mark is aligned with that it will be good for folks who are studying that degree...

[bossman]

Why are Schools so hell bent on IT technical staff having educational degrees when much better qualifications can be sort after by industry MCSE MCSA MCP CCNA CCNP CCIE etc etc. Why do we as IT professionals in our own right have to play second fiddle to Teaching Professionals who lets face it can gain a degree in bullshit if they wanted and still get paid for it a damn site more than the poor IT guy who has spent the last 6 years building up his portfolio with professional qualifications to be told that they aren't really relevant to the post as they are not teacher centric based. Its right what you say kingswood 100% the schools are purely teacher centric and as we don't fall under that umbrella we are a neccessary evil which has been the same throughout historical british management you are needed but despised for having technical know how and passion. something that i feel a lot of the teaching profession has lost over the years.

[russdev]

Why are Schools so hell bent on IT technical staff having educational degrees when much better qualifications can be sort after by industry MCSE MCSA MCP CCNA CCNP CCIE etc etc. Why do we as IT professionals in our own right have to play second fiddle to Teaching Professionals who lets face it can gain a degree in bullshit if they wanted and still get paid for it a damn site more than the poor IT guy who has spent the last 6 years building up his portfolio with professional qualifications to be told that they aren't really relevant to the post as they are not teacher centric based. Its right what you say kingswood 100% the schools are purely teacher centric and as we don't fall under that umbrella we are a neccessary evil which has been the same throughout historical british management you are needed but despised for having technical know how and passion. something that i feel a lot of the teaching profession has lost over the years.

 

 

ok bossman calm down...

 

no one said teacher centric we said education centric..

 

I am sorry going to disagree your work in a school you need to be education centric view schools are about teaching and learning (i mean that not in teachers and learning but that school is there to educate young people so are you ok not in direct in front of class but in direct way through use of technology of?

 

Second i am sorry industry MCSE MCSA MCP CCNA CCNP CCIE etc etc. mean nothing yes they mean can use technology and are important but if want to work in education then need to have education side as well.

 

But you need to have education centric view otherwise you will be out of a a job I am sorry people might not want hear this but with various dfes stuff coming online aka bsf and other stuff then you need to play part in education side just as much and problem even more as a technical staff we lead way in new ideas and technology.

 

Also i think comments about teachers getting degrees is worn teacher do work hard for there degrees heck i seen work they have to do just i think support staff work hard as well.

 

So you moan that you are not getting recognised as member of staff but then here is something that will help you gain recognition.

 

As said this mark must go hand in hand with industry courses, degree courses and everything else to make bigger picture.

 

Also I not got any industry course as such but worked my way up by a doing good job but also keeping abreast both technical and education side and I am sorry the days when "ict staff came and put box on table and left" are gone you need to be full part of education process.

[bossman]

Russ sorry for ranting and i know you work very hard, i don't want to be a damp squid but it is about time we brought the education dept round to the idea that there are more ways to teach than sticking a person in front of bunch of kids and rambling on about something they really know little about.

I think now that the teaching profession has it's good points and it's bad points like every other profession but it seems to be stuck in a time warp let's say 30-40 years ago. I still see the same old lessons being taught with the same theme and experiments that i did at school 30+ years ago. Come on Russ lets get our heads out of the sand and stop molly coddling these people who think that they know all about the young people and how we should teach them kids want to be taught but not by these archaic methods they need real technology and good professional teaching methods which are designed to engage them.

 

I still think what you are doing is good Russ and you are right to slap me down if i annoy you but i must speak as i find and i think a lot of educational IT staff would tell the same story i am afraid to say. schools have become a part of industry in a way and they must behave like industry to survive this means finding the most efficient way of developing resources for children to learn from and recognise those professionals who help achieve this. We are all supposed to work for the benifit of the children but i feel education is so dissorientated on the matter that the teaching professionals who manage the educational depts at all levels are only in it for the money and nothing more.

I apologise also to those teaching professionals who are geniunely interseted in the kids cos i feel these people are great but a great number as i say are only in it for the money and pension.

[GrumbleDook]

Historically a degree was a sign that you were amongst the most intelligent (and from families that could afford to help you through Uni), but the fact that Labour want 50% of school leavers to go to university (not "continue their learning" ... that is a seperate thing and they 100% to do that) means that degrees are not respected as much as they were.

 

A degree (and subsequent post-grad qualifications like Masters of PhDs) are meant to show that you can work academically, whereas trade qualifications are meant to show your ability to implement skills.

 

The education sector has always put a high priority on the academic side of things (due to the idea that education is passing on knowledge as a sage would to his followers) but this is slowly changing towards personalised learning, with the teacher having more of a role of the mentor, the coach and the instructor. It works for some subjects but not for others. it all depends on whether the subject is based around concepts and skills or concepts and information (eg the difference between Art and Biology).

 

There are a number of subjects that are in the middle ... and people are not sure what to do with them and so they take elements from both types of curriculum and stick it all together ... and you suddenly have vocational qualifications.

 

Techies are expected to fit into this area ... and the foundation degrees and qualifications that people like NAACE, Universtiy of Lancaster, Sheffield Hallam and Ultralab are working on take a mix of the academic and the trade qualifications.

 

It will take time to see how it all fits into the grand scheme of things but it the IT Pro NAACEMark was equivalent to 30 points (eg a quarter of a degree year under the OU rankings) then surely it could only be a good thing.

 

Produce a portfolio of evidence of what you actually do and you get a certificate and points towards your course?

[webman]

So who says that the DfES/BSF etc are right when they say "us technical support staff" should be more involved with the "educational side"? We are employed to do the technical manintenance and support of the networks that provide the means for the teachers to teach and the pupils to learn. Yes, we need to know a bit about how the educational system works to be able to provide the right sort of technology for their use, but that does have its limits just as you would if you were in an IT team for British Airways; you would not need to know how to fly an aeroplane to be able to fix their computers, to put it simply. Where does the technical support end and the teaching begin?

 

What is the problem with education recognising IT professional qualifications?

[CyberNerd]

Where does the technical support end and the teaching begin?

 

A better question is where does the teaching end and the technical support begin?

 

ICT teachers know their office products pretty well, but in general have little concept of enterprise software management, Network management, infrastructure and general stuff that we have to deal with on a daily basis. Given that none of the details are even touched on in A'level -let alone GSCE, its hardly suprising that the teachers are clueless. IMO its not worth teaching us in the ways of teaching, rather teachers should be trained in computing.

[webman]

ICT teachers know their office products pretty well, but in general have little concept of enterprise software management, Network management, infrastructure and general stuff that we have to deal with on a daily basis.

 

Exactly my point. That's what we are here for. If only they would let us get on with it.

[bossman]

In a nutshell teachers want us as ICT support staff to do their work for them as most are clueless and also a lot more are just plain lazy full stop!

 

 

 

A better question is where does the teaching end and the technical support begin?

[russdev]

To be honest your looking it from wrong point your saying "why should we know about teaching"

 

Not saying that i am saying we should know about educating students as that is our 'core business' not ict...

 

I dont me we should know about teaching what i am saying is that just having an industry certificate is not good enough you need combo of both technical and education knowledge.

 

Ok then question for your ictac do you know latest stuff on that how can ict be used by other departments if don’t know that then how can you advise when best ict to use.

 

Russ

[webman]

I don't see why we need this educational knowledge if all our job is to maintain the networks (in a nutshell). I think the best people to advise on ICT use in other departments are the ICT teachers who have limited technical knowledge to liase with the technically-minded Network Manager. At the end of the day all it comes down to is communication.

[GrumbleDook]

Ok ... a number of different posts I can start this off on but this seems the best place ... please not that these comments are not specifically aimed at webman but a a number of comments made in this thread.

So who says that the DfES/BSF etc are right when they say "us technical support staff" should be more involved with the "educational side"?

We do ... we moan that teachers make decisions about what they are going to do with computers, that senior managlement makes plans without any foresight into what is and isn't feasible and we have a right royal whinge when money is wasted (the white elephants thread went on for some time remember!)

 

WE keep saying that they need to consult us ... that we have some cracking ideas that would benefit the whole school ... and lets not forget that this may actually be something to save jobs. With BSF and Managed Services being pushed from on high the suggestions that have been made by key people in SSAT, DfES, BECTA and other groups that having more of an impact on the education is an area that may help keep jobs in-house ... I think that pretty much sums up that not everyone wants to get rid of us and they do think we have a very valid role within a school.

 

We are employed to do the technical manintenance and support of the networks that provide the means for the teachers to teach and the pupils to learn. Yes, we need to know a bit about how the educational system works to be able to provide the right sort of technology for their use, but that does have its limits just as you would if you were in an IT team for British Airways; you would not need to know how to fly an aeroplane to be able to fix their computers, to put it simply. Where does the technical support end and the teaching begin?

 

When we stop teaching ... and we do it every single day. We are trainers ... helping users with the multitude of packages that a school may have ... sometimes it is only a 2 minute "No! You add slide transitions like this!" through to 2 hour sessions on SIMS. Because we do this we are often viewed as accepting the present academic model and trying to conform to it, even though it may not fit us (we are often expected to babysit or help teach a class because we instruct others).

 

As an aviation technician I would reasonably be expected to understand the principles of aerodynamics and how areas that I work on have an effect on this (that is the case with RAF techies and I presume it would be for civil aviation too). A car mechanic would be expected to understand how to use a clutch and it's importance even if the couldn't drive.

 

What is the problem with education recognising IT professional qualifications?

 

Because education is academic and pro IT quals are trade related ... see my above post. It is not just techies ... they often struggle to understand chartered librarians, accountancy quals, project management quals (I recently got into a conversation about the revelance of PRINCE 2 in schools ... and someone thought that a certain short singer was making a comeback and going round schools as a press gimmick!)

 

As for the teacher bashing ... can we cut it out please ... there are a number of members that are teachers that have the difficult balance of being very techie orientated, want to try new things but are now being stifled because it is not T&L based ...

 

Try not to label them all because of a few eejits. We all have horror stories about how Mr X tried to plug the RJ45 into a wall socket and home and moaned that we didn't give him the right leads ... or of a head who signs up for a service costing several thousand pounds without realising that you already have a better system in house we you now have to scrap because it is not the one *he* chose ...

 

Things like ICTMark and IT Pro NAACEMark should be the sort of thing to give you move ammo to prove you know what you are talking about ...