Thursday, 01 June 2006 - Meeting At NAACE Offices.

[alan-d]

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

 

I believe there is a problem with the above.

 

What you are saying is that to gain any formal recognition of the job and knowledge you have from NAACE, you are required to obtain industry recognised qualifications.

 

We are all well aware that schools do not have the funding for the majority of industry recognised qualifications and the majority of technicians pay for most, if not all, courses and exam fees themselves.

 

If you are saying that schools should use NAACE qualifications to assist in grading and renumerating their technicians, how is any lowly paid technician ever going to progress? Especially if they are a single entity within the school and have no experience around them to draw from.

 

I agree that industry qualifications are a useful lever, but only if the school in question uses the technology the qualification covers. If by some fluke of nature a school has some training funds to cover technician training, they, quite rightly, would only pay for courses that would benefit the school. ie why pay for an MCSA when you run Linux? or why pay for ECDL when you use Open Office?

 

Schools are unique in industry terms in that the technicians are the jack of all trades in the IT world.

 

Considering that uniqness would it not make more sense that the qualification for NAACE accreditation be more on the lines of the NVQ route. Specifically designed for the school IT technician that could be carried from one school to the next.

[webman]

It's OK Tony, I speak what I believe and will take back anything which I later believe to be wrong or look at in a different light.

 

I think all it takes is a bit of communication between staff (management, teachers, support staff) to achieve maximum results.

 

I understand we need to know how the education system works, but we don't need to be able to teach. I think you got me wrong when I mentioned about flying an aeroplane. If I was a mechanic, I would definately need to understand the clutch of a car. But I was referring to the IT guys who work for those companies, doing IT maintenance (not touching the cars, aeroplanes..) if you see what I mean. In the same light, I am of the opinion that that scenario transfers to education - we don't need to know how to teach to be able to do an effective job of maintaining the network systems.

 

Is this all just the thin end of a wedge or will it actually be of a benefit to us as IT professionals?

 

Because education is academic and pro IT quals are trade related ...

 

But why should that be? Is it because if they don't recognise trade qualifications they don't have to pay trade salaries? I don't know. Am I wrong in saying Education relies as much on IT now as any other sector?

[Chafftech]

I have to say having the NAACEMark in itself will prove nothing either. A CCNA or MCSE is equally valid. The aptitude of whether or not someone is suitable to work as a technician / network manager in a school needs to be assessed at the interview by someone who is already technical enough to make these decisions i.e LEA ICT Support. This is not happening.

 

We are here to make the network run as effeciently as possible, the ICT Director / co-ordinator is the person who should be analysing what methods of ICT teaching is to take place then pass that analysis to Network Manager to project manage and oversee implementation. Do you see this happening - no because most teachers are idiots.

 

I am all for having NAACEmark if you want to increase educational awareness among IT support staff but please do not confuse this with technical expertise and apptitude in IT. This should not be a qualification you MUST have but should be recommended as plus point after any other experience or industry certs.

[russdev]

when I said hand in hand meant that both work toegher in overall picture not that must have one for the other.

 

As for mark being must have dont think that is case but if got to people interviewing same in tech standards but one got this mark then you would go with that one.

 

I am all for having NAACEmark if you want to increase educational awareness among IT support staff but please do not confuse this with technical expertise and apptitude in IT. This should not be a qualification you MUST have but should be recommended as plus point after any other experience or industry certs.

 

Think you said it great there

 

Only thing I would say is if people want to be consultant they have to show that hey can do education side as well..

 

Also what we are seeing here is in effect tech side of it there is also one for teachers, lsa's etc etc

 

Which to certain degree people are saying that that support should be seen on its own right well for once it is not and being lumped into teaching ict mark.

 

Russ

[kingswood]

I think the idea of being educationalists is a poignant point- and one that is being discussed elsewhere. I also think it is the right direction to go in, so from that perspective anything that helps the ICT worker in schools become better at being in IT *in education* is a good thing; so long as it doesn't burden the worker down more than they are already ;-)

 

But I also wonder why it is that industry qualifications (I think "vendor specific" would be a better description now) aren't taken up with as much interest inside of schools when often those qualifications reflect the skills used by staff every day (an MCP for example in XP or an ECDL in Office). It probably depends on the school.

 

Anyway, a great discussion. In the end if the IT Pro mark hits the road it can only be good for those of us who like working in education and integrating the technical with the academic in effective and pioneering ways. Aherm. Good sales pitch. Because in the end what it will really mean is that we have to do the same work we do now, only with a certificating mark that says we *understand* education a bit more than Joe down the road.

[alan-d]

Good sales pitch. Because in the end what it will really mean is that we have to do the same work we do now, only with a certificating mark that says we *understand* education a bit more than Joe down the road.

 

Unfortunately as it stands at the moment, this Mark is only going to be vaild within the school it was gained which is why I suggested an NVQ type qualification that could be recognised nationally together with vendor specific qualifications.

 

As I see it at the moment, there is no real incentive to obtain NAACE accreditation unless there is definate hope that the individual will progress up the ladder within the same organisation. Why would an individual work toward a NAACE accreditation when a microsoft qualification would give him/her a more flexible portfolio?

 

Although it's not going to be used as such now, you can be pretty certain that schools or LEAs will use this accreditation to decide on the relevant payscales in the future.

 

This issue of making the accreditation only valid within the organisation it was gained has to be addressed before any further decision are made. I feel that to keep it as it is will cause the whole plan to fall on it's backside before it even gets off the ground.

[russdev]

Valid points alan dont worry i am going to write all this up and send it off to naace.

 

"Important note: We must be careful when making such an award that it was given in the context of a particular school and level of ICT professional – hence organisation of support activities or planning of CPD may have worked fine in one institution but would rely on an equivalent framework of professional support to be effective in a different context. (This could be a real problem, but I don’t see how we can easily get around it.)"

 

I suppose that is what the are saying there as award has to be given in some kind of context with school aka you follow school procedures etc but how do you move it across when you move jobs

 

So how can this be fixed so it can transfer easily.

 

Russell

[webman]

And this is the problem with Education. There is very little standardisation for us to follow between schools and LEAs that make this sort of thing incredibly difficult.

[alan-d]

The NVQ system is flexible in a way that skills in one organisation are recorded so that they are transferable. For example my wife is doing an NVQ which is transferable to other nursing homes.

 

Most IT tasks of an administrative function such as keeping logs, backups, procurement, distribution etc are more or less the same everywhere. Yes there are differences specific to each organisation but in the main the resposibilities are there in one form or another.

 

Personally I dislike the NVQ system, mainly because most are run by companies looking for an easy profit, I'm just using it as an example of how it could be achieved.

 

It would take a lot of time and resources to set up and administer but the end product would be a nationally recognised sytem of a technicians ability with an educational environment.

[russdev]

but then this is not so much about skills but that you can apply those skills in education setting taking the education factors into account

 

hmmm goes and thinks for a while...

 

Russ

[webman]

but then this is not so much about skills but that you can apply those skills in education setting taking the education factors into account

 

Well if that is all there is to it, then why is it to be estabishment-only and not transferrable to another school?

[kingswood]

but then this is not so much about skills but that you can apply those skills in education setting taking the education factors into account

 

hmmm goes and thinks for a while...

 

Russ

 

Yeah- the logical question that would come to my mind would be: who defines what those "education factors" are? How do we define ICT in education as fundamentally different than ICT "out there" in workplaces across the UK? I know they are different- not at every point- but they are unique; but how do we define that difference so that we can take from that definition an idea of what skills we need to take into account in awarding someone an "IT Mark" in education?

[alan-d]

I think the answer to that is to start with a simple comparison with our counterparts in industry.

 

Start with the basic tasks that would be expected of a technician or NM then compare it with industrial equivilents.

 

You will probably find that although industry technicians do the same tasks in a lot of areas, they probably don't do all of them. This is obviously a generalisation but you get the idea.

 

As to who actually defines the differences - well I guess that's where edugeek comes in.

[kingswood]

I think the answer to that is to start with a simple comparison with our counterparts in industry.

 

Start with the basic tasks that would be expected of a technician or NM then compare it with industrial equivilents.

 

You will probably find that although industry technicians do the same tasks in a lot of areas, they probably don't do all of them. This is obviously a generalisation but you get the idea.

 

As to who actually defines the differences - well I guess that's where edugeek comes in.

 

A direct comparison would only work for so long. I talked with someone this last week who told me to get my CV out into industry. I said I didn't have any certification and he laughed: you don't need it coming from education, because industry know that if you ran a school network you can probably run an office network easily! I was shocked. I think you are correct though in that some of it is similar- I mean apssword resets, imaging, AD, profiles- you get the idea. But it's the unique way that this happens within a school that batters the opposition.

 

It might be that we find although the skills are even fundamentally different they are so similar that there can be no clear-cut answer, making defining the "education factors" part even more difficult. Is it *really* that different working in education than in industry? Well, I've done it and it is to a degree. We may just have a case.

 

I agree too in that Edugeek stands in a unique position to communicate those differences to NAACE and other organisations/bodies so that we can begin to frame a picture of just what it takes to make ICT in education work.

 

I was just playing with ideas. And I think that's what we should all be doing to help Edugeek fulfill this intermediate role. After all- *we all* are Edugeek(s)...

[russdev]

I think to certain degree hence why they want to link into becta standards at least thn you framework to go with.

 

NAACE agrees with you hence why they have asked for our views and I think this doucment is starting point this is idea then a further specs type document will be released which is basicly the requirment that people have to furfill (I will askf ro timetable of plan as to say)

 

Russ

[russdev]

ok doke fyi we have submited following document on to naace http://www.edugeek.net/bulletins/NAACEMark_Comments.pdf

 

Russ

[alan-d]

Nice one

[broc]

Good discussion. This thread makes a very interesting read, and prior to BSF it could have made a real difference to the lives of ICT support staff in school.

 

But, BSF is forcing schools down the route of managed services, with ICT support staff being transferred to a managed service provider, whether schools like it or not. Will these providers recognise any of the qualifications being proposed by NAACE, Becta? Or are they going to be more interested in 'industry' qualifications like MCSA etc?

 

At a recent BSF meeting I attended hosted by my LA and Partnership for Schools, we were told that after the initial BSF ICT capital investment of £1450 per pupil was made, schools would be expected to pay between £60-£120 per pupil per year for their managed ICT service for the duration of the managed service contract (5 years). At the £60 level they would get a basic service, without any provision for new equipment during the 5 years, at the higher level this would some provide replacement kit, every 3 years or so. By comparison, the consultant from Partnership for schools quoted a figure of £91 per student per year for schools as a typical cost of ICT provision today.

 

Under BSF I am not sure if schools will be able to afford the luxury of having us provide 'education' support...... come to think of it I am not sure they will be able to afford the luxury of having us provide even the level of ICT support they get today.....

[russdev]

lol

 

There is somewhere a managed servers thread as we have wrote a report again for nacce on EduGeek views on managed services due to go off tonight to them.

 

Also the mark will be recognised by people as it i9s being lead by dfes/naacemark bascily same way as naacemark for schools was created by naace but then became ict mark.

 

This will in effect i suspect do similar kind of thing