The Fallen...

[russdev]

I probably should point out preferred bidder does not mean they have got it that is not final until contract has been decided and signed as Leicester city bsf proved.

 

 

Russ

[Grommit]

Our Respect to our fallen Comrades.. The fallen ICT Managers....

 

These are ENTIRE Counties and Boroughs

 

Islington is Confirmed RM

 

Leeds confirmed as RM

 

Stoke confirmed as RM

 

Knowsley confirmed as RM

 

Leeds confirmed as RM

 

Manchester confirmed as RM

 

Solihull confirmed as RM

 

Waltham Forest confirmed as RM

 

Lambeth confirmed as RM

 

DfES Computers for Pupils confirmed as RM

 

All Primary schools in Northern Ireland CC3 confirmed as RM

 

Bristol ?

 

And the Steam Roller keeps coming...

[webman]

[align=center]Building Schools for the Future proudly presents...

 

RM

 

... Coming soon to a school near you [/align]

[Guest richard]

The only thing I'm going to say on the matter is:

 

"Politics breeds corruption and corruption breeds politics"

[Midget]

The school IT system has apparently been taken over; conquered if you will, by a master race of giant Faceless IT Suppliers. It’s difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive edugeeks or merely enslave them.

 

One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them, the Suppliers will soon be here.

 

.... and I for one welcome our new faceless overlords and would like to remind them as a trusted ex-edugeek I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

[kylewilliamson]

Isn't that a Simpsons quote ? :x

[russdev]

Our Respect to our fallen Comrades.. The fallen ICT Managers....

 

These are ENTIRE Counties and Boroughs

 

Islington is Confirmed RM

 

Leeds confirmed as RM

 

Stoke confirmed as RM

 

Knowsley confirmed as RM

 

Leeds confirmed as RM

 

Manchester confirmed as RM

 

Solihull confirmed as RM

 

Waltham Forest confirmed as RM

 

Lambeth confirmed as RM

 

DfES Computers for Pupils confirmed as RM

 

All Primary schools in Northern Ireland CC3 confirmed as RM

 

Bristol ?

 

And the Steam Roller keeps coming...

 

 

Think might want to check the above grommit only couple are confirmed rest are preferred bidder only status so are not confirmed not until contract is signed.

 

Also you have leeds in twice and also ni has nothing to do with bsf.

 

Russ

[Geoff]

DfES Computers for Pupils confirmed as RM

 

Do you know what the status of this is? As it potentially affects us all.

[GrumbleDook]

Computers for Pupils has had funding allocated directly to LAs. The funding principles are a bit cloudy and it also has to include connectivity and support for connectivity. Some LAs are said to be opting to purchase from companies that can do the whole lot in one go. One LA I spoke with during the holidays said they were doing it this way as they had had a number of nasty emails and phone calls from schools telling them that their techies where not going to become glorified hell-desk drones for the LA to try and support the connectivity side of Computers for Pupils ... a similar opinion to that which was expressed here when CfP first appeared.

 

LAs ... damned if they do, damned if they don't!

[Geoff]

I'm not sure it's that black and white. While I'm sure funding/staffing to support these extra computers is/will be a big issue. I like the idea (at least on paper) of students being able to connect their machines to the schools network. Even on a basic level simply for internet access.

 

Fortunately, here, I've actually got systems in place to make this work (from a technical standpoint). Although any associated network access polices are still up in the air. (I'd welcome ideas on this front, as I've only got examples for University Halls of Residence situations).

 

It doesn't surprise me that some schools are unwilling or unable to take advantage of this situation though.

 

However I take it then from your reply there is no 'national' contract for the Computers for Pupils DfES scheme and RM hasn't got it. Rather it's being done piece meal on a LA by LA basis?

[GrumbleDook]

Information about funding streams for CfP is available in the recent Becta publication on funding guidance.

 

CfP can be ring fenced by the LA as they means test the schools to work out who deserves the money. The likelihood of this all being centralised to be doled out by a single company flies in the face of the devolved leadership that is happening in ICT, including BSF.

 

Basically ... give the LA the ability to make the decisions (with the schools being consulted) and if anything goes wrong it is the fault of the LA, not the Govt or the schools.

 

The LA might shuffle it out to a company that contractually say they can deliver ... and if they don't the LA has a scapegoat.

 

Yes ... I am feeling very cynical about it all today, but I am sat here scoring procurements so what do you expect!

 

I actually have a list of those confirmed ICT Companies under BSF on my work machine and RM is not quite as prevalent as you might expect ... and out of the long listed and shortlisted companies it seems that Ramesys is the company that is growing in stature.

[Grommit]

Our Respect to our fallen Comrades.. The fallen ICT Managers....

 

These are ENTIRE Counties and Boroughs

 

Islington is Confirmed RM

 

Leeds confirmed as RM

 

Stoke confirmed as RM

 

Knowsley confirmed as RM

 

Leeds confirmed as RM

 

Manchester confirmed as RM

 

Solihull confirmed as RM

 

Waltham Forest confirmed as RM

 

Lambeth confirmed as RM

 

DfES Computers for Pupils confirmed as RM

 

All Primary schools in Northern Ireland CC3 confirmed as RM

 

Bristol ?

 

And the Steam Roller keeps coming...

 

 

Think might want to check the above grommit only couple are confirmed rest are preferred bidder only status so are not confirmed not until contract is signed.

 

Also you have leeds in twice and also ni has nothing to do with bsf.

 

Russ

 

Prefered Bidders or Contract Awarded that are confirmed that they are in the very short list.. only 1 I know has not gone to RM plan..

 

Sorry about the double Leeds..

 

Newham

 

Warwickshire and Lanarkshire (?) are all RM as well as they have had contracts there for years..

 

 

And as for NI I know thay are not part of the BSF .. they are controlled by Northgate.. but they are going to ahve CC3 in every Primary School in the Country..

 

They are also getting strong in the Australian market..

 

As they have just bougt a leading Education Software Company called CAZ Software and

 

RM Australasia renews its contract to provide school management software and support to 767 schools in Western Australia.

 

I am just worried that the smaller supplier and all the small people are going to be wiped out .. a bit like the Corner Shop and Tesco..

 

http://www.rm.com/investors/NewsList.asp

 

http://www.rm.com/company/Generic.asp

[Grommit]

Sorry ... Manchester is RAMESYS... :oops:

[russdev]

Think Australian market is here or there to your argument as market and setup is very different.

 

Problem is your trying to say look RM have GOT all these bsf contracts but what you are doing is fudging the facts for your own agenda which has nothing to do with bsf but some kind of campaign against RM. As if you where really interested in bsf you wouldn't of ignored comments made that RM are only going for bsf contracts in lea's where they have stake already and that up and coming contracts are being going to be mostly won Ramesis.

 

I have no problem with an informed debate but you need to be upfront in what you are arguing.

 

Again Newham, Warwickshire and Lanarkshire (?) are not BSF so really nothing to do with your argument.

 

If going to down this route of saying companies going for BSF are devil and should be burned at sake then fine but be honest about it and don't single out one company.

 

You seem to switch argument at one point your angry abut tupe side and then your angry that government has allowed private investment in schools (PFI been around long before BSF).

 

As I understand you where part of pathfinders maybe you should look up definition of what pathfinders project was about and that is work what not to do and learn from mistakes and if mistakes are made put funding in to correct it.

 

As said got no problem people having informed debate about BSF and RM but not when you are trying to fudge facts for your own agenda.

[ind13]

Waltham Forest is also Ramesys,

and i thought that Dfes Computers for Pupils was down to each LEA to sort out for themselves i doubt that that whole country would be down to RM.

[broc]

In my LA the authority invited tenders from potential suppliers for computers for pupils, this included installation & support services as well as Broadband connectivity from home. Apart from identifying students who met the qualifying criteria, schools had no direct involvement in the process.

 

A short list of three suppliers with their proposed solutions (including UMPC, desktop and notebook alternatives) was produced & schools involved were asked to state a preference. I believe the intention was to go with the majority vote. No attempt was made by the LA to impose any particular supplier/solution.

 

No plans exist (that I am aware of) to allow these systems to connect to our school network, in any case most solutions were based upon XP Home or Vista Home which mean they would not integrate very well in school. I am looking at connectivity options as part of a wider wireless review just in case someone 'springs' the idea of allowing them in school although there would be major issues of secure storage & power management if we suddenly had an influx of 70-80 additional portable wireless devices.

[Geoff]

identifying students who met the qualifying criteria

 

I'd be interested to know what criteria was used?

[Grommit]

identifying students who met the qualifying criteria

 

I'd be interested to know what criteria was used?

 

The Deprivation Index

 

http://analysis.mkiobservatory.org.uk/webview/index.jsp?mode=cube&cube=http%3A%2F%2Fanalysis.mkiobservatory.org.uk%3A80%2Fobj%2FfCube%2FJD138Sa_C1&study=http%3A%2F%2Fanalysis.mkiobservatory.org.uk%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2FJD138Sa

 

I believe the intention was to go with the majority vote. No attempt was made by the LA to impose any particular supplier/solution.

 

We are forced to buy from 1 supplier...

[Grommit]

Think Australian market is here or there to your argument as market and setup is very different.

 

Problem is your trying to say look RM have GOT all these bsf contracts but what you are doing is fudging the facts for your own agenda which has nothing to do with bsf but some kind of campaign against RM. As if you where really interested in bsf you wouldn't of ignored comments made that RM are only going for bsf contracts in lea's where they have stake already and that up and coming contracts are being going to be mostly won Ramesis.

 

I have no problem with an informed debate but you need to be upfront in what you are arguing.

 

Again Newham, Warwickshire and Lanarkshire (?) are not BSF so really nothing to do with your argument.

 

If going to down this route of saying companies going for BSF are devil and should be burned at sake then fine but be honest about it and don't single out one company.

 

You seem to switch argument at one point your angry abut tupe side and then your angry that government has allowed private investment in schools (PFI been around long before BSF).

 

As I understand you where part of pathfinders maybe you should look up definition of what pathfinders project was about and that is work what not to do and learn from mistakes and if mistakes are made put funding in to correct it.

 

As said got no problem people having informed debate about BSF and RM but not when you are trying to fudge facts for your own agenda.

 

Russ... My argument is not just about the BSF and RM.. it's about the bigger picture of a few companies wiping out the existing ICT support structure of the education sector..

 

in 5 years time most of the ICT Managers on this board will be either lower Technicians or working in another sector..

 

There are thousands and thousands of Network Managers who have careers in the Education sector and they are gonna be wiped out.

 

That's the bottom line..

 

(one of my mates down the road has lost his job because they would only TUPE him as a technician on lower everything.. he built the entire network with full disaster recovery.... and all they offered him was to change toners. )

 

So getting all pedantic about is is a bit like the little Dutch Boy and the dyke

 

I don't care about discussing the merits of the BSF and RM vs. RAMESYS.... can't be bothered...

 

What I want to get over to people is

 

"WAKE UP NETWORK MANAGERS... YOUR JOBS ARE ON THE LINE AND IF WE CAN GET ENOUGH HEADS INVOLVED WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE MANDATIORY MANAGED SUPPORT CRITERIA."

 

I am also trying to show with what RM and other companies are up too and what OTHER support contracts they have APART from the BSF .....and how the Education Support could be turning into a Monopoly (bit like Tesco)

 

Sorry if it seems that I am singling out RM.. but they are the biggest player... so it's all of them..

 

And as for the PFI... that was OK because the schools could opt OUT of the Managed Services Contract..

 

As for TUPEing..... I was just pointing out that it's not really worth much at all as the new company can get rid of you quite simply if they wanted..

 

And it seems you guys don't really care much about the BSF... look where the most life changing topic to Network Managers is sitting in your forum.. at the bottom of General Chat.. under... "Talk about your favorite Beer" and "Get it off your chest"... I believe it should be right on top (above Windows) as it is that serious.

[ctbjs]

@Grommit

 

And as for the PFI... that was OK because the schools could opt OUT of the Managed Services Contract..

 

Are you sure PFI can OPT out? Do you have a source for this as we are PFI and naturally like you am extremely concerned.

 

I can understand Russ's "rant" if you can call it that, he is of course in bed with RM so to speak and it is natural to stand by them. I am a little indifferent, my experience with RM was going back just over 6 years ago and quite frankly their support service and equipment provision was appalling (ie inadequate server set at half duplex) . I ripped them out when I arrived and started afresh. I believe that they have improved from those days but not having experienced this or spoken to anyone recently would not want to further comment. Russ clearly believes in them and he is right to do so.

 

TUPEing... According to the ACAS legislation the effect of the Regulations is to preserve the continuity of employment and terms and conditions of those employees who are transferred to a new employer when a relevant transfer takes place. This means that the employees employed by the previous employer when the transfer takes effect automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions (except for certain pension rights). It is as if their contracts of employment had originally been made with the new employer. They can only be varied by the new employer with the agreement of the employee. Surely if your mate was covered by this then he has a right to appeal!!?

 

If you have any further info Grommit I would very much like to know as our LA appears to have opted for the mushroom effect despite us airing our concerns.

 

Chris

[Grommit]

@Grommit

 

And as for the PFI... that was OK because the schools could opt OUT of the Managed Services Contract..

 

Are you sure PFI can OPT out? Do you have a source for this as we are PFI and naturally like you am extremely concerned.

 

Chris

 

I am not 100% sure about now but 3 years ago you could make a business case... Sorry I cannot be more help...

 

 

 

TUPEing... According to the ACAS legislation the effect of the Regulations is to preserve the continuity of employment and terms and conditions of those employees who are transferred to a new employer when a relevant transfer takes place. This means that the employees employed by the previous employer when the transfer takes effect automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions (except for certain pension rights). It is as if their contracts of employment had originally been made with the new employer. They can only be varied by the new employer with the agreement of the employee. Surely if your mate was covered by this then he has a right to appeal!!?

 

 

Chris

 

You can be retrenched from any company... your school can retrench you now if they wanted and all they would have to pay is a couple of weeks pay..

 

The same wuth the new company you have been tuped too.. they just retrench you after 3 months.. too many staff.. simple

[Skol]

Sorry if this is a repeat but it may be usefull for all of us that are confused as to the tupe regualtions.

 

Pages 22 on (Dismissals and Redunancies) are the important bits I think

[Grommit]

As stated

 

"Dismissals on the grounds of redundancy are permitted by TUPE, as they will normally be for an ETO reason, although the new employer will need to make sure that the redundancy is fair within other employment legislation: e.g. selection for redundancy is fair, and not based simply on the fact that the person is a transferred employee. "

 

And what the redundancy payment ?? Something like 1 week for every year worked ?

 

So they don't have to sack or dismiss you they just retrench you...

 

And what is a fair selection.. LIFO... Last in first out..

 

so if you are being TUPED to a large unnamed company I'm sure that the "new" TUPED techies are the last in...

[CyberNerd]

And what the redundancy payment ?? Something like 1 week for every year worked ?

not good:

What are the payments?

 

The amount of your lump-sum redundancy payment depends on:

 

*

how long you have been continuously employed by your employer;

*

how your years of continuous service relate to a particular age band; and

your weekly pay, up to a legal limit.

 

The amount of redundancy pay will be calculated as –

 

* 0.5 week’s pay for each full year of service where age during year less than 22

* 1.0 week’s pay for each full year of service where age during year is 22 or above, but less than 41

* 1.5 weeks’ pay for each full year of service where age during year is 41+

http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page15686.html

And what is a fair selection.. LIFO... Last in first out..

this is debatable now, since the age discrimination legistation came in to force.

 

so if you are being TUPED to a large unnamed company I'm sure that the "new" TUPED techies are the last in...

 

no - that would be unfair, if they use LIFO it's based upon time served prior to transfer. Remember tupe is to protect employees. Most employers don't use LIFO because it's not always in the companies interest. Usually it's done via a skills based assessment (competitive interview) to decide who to lay off. Under employment law, employers are obliged to limit redundancies

 

Any redundancy *must* be disclosed prior to transfer - that document that says there will be 1 tech in each school and 1 NM for 5 schools is that disclosure - they will make it public but might not tell you in person

[m25man]

IF, the objective was to provide better managed, better organised and significant cost savings for each and every school and LEA that buy's into what is in effect another PPP so be it!

 

IF, the schools save significant money on a year by year basis and recieve better services why not!

 

The leading BSF companies have recruited top class project managers and top flight technical staff on six figure salaries to deliver the goods and the contracts appear to be tight enough to make them deliver something, even if it's not what was ever expected or agreed!.

 

Why should you belive otherwise! You should place your trust in the people that have determined your fate, you voted for them, they are politicians!

 

I have seen managed systems in schools before, many of them are still running windows 95/98/2000 workstations and NT4 servers!

 

Currently most state schools have a choice, either to maintain and advance the school IT systems at a pace that matches THE SCHOOLS requirements or hand them over to a managed solution that will advance them at a pace that the profit margins allow.

 

Once signed up, these schools will be paying year after year after year for ageing and quickly obsolete systems and will be dealing with faceless drones waiting days if not weeks for system changes and updates.

 

Adding a piece of software to the system will take months to be approved and then only if it has been repackaged at an additional cost will it be allowed near the system.

 

If RM do not deliver the goods in a BSF contract they will simply be replaced by another company such as Ramesys, Viglen or a.n.other who cares!

It will just become a merry go round of service providers the cost will spiral out of control until the schools and the LEA's can't afford to replace a mouse ball yet alone provide a viable IT infrastructure.

 

From what I have seen so far, the effects that IT outsourcing has, is just minor collateral damage when compared to the other financial, land loss and property re-development that has happened in some projects!

 

Where I live, we lost an entire infants/junior school to build Executive Homes whilst the builders extended a nearby secondary site with a whole new building and associated services.

Now that the people that have moved into the new homes they find they will have to commute up to 5 miles to take their kids to a primary school!

 

BSF, Building Schools for the Future - should really be called MSF, Mortgaging Schools for the Future!

 

This short term fix will leave a legacy that will take a generation of taxpayers to buy themselves out of.

 

Mark my words and this post!

BSF is the begining of the end of the state education system, the dismantling of the IT services and assimilation by corporate service companies is just cloudy waters, the true tsunami is yet to come!

 

In the not too distant future, if you want your kids to get a good education you will have to pay, from cradle to graduation, so stop whimpering on just about your jobs and look at the BIG BSF PICTURE for a change.

 

Look at the Police, 10 years and millions of taxpayers money spent on a co-ordinated IT project and still the systems don't talk to each other!

The Public services also asked for a secure digital radio system and they got Tetra a digitally trunked analog system!

Millions put down the drain before they realised they has been stitched up, then what what did they do, bought another new system!

 

The NHS and the CSA both have IT systems that apparently don't work properly according to their own ministers!.

 

What makes you think that BSF will do any better!

 

Last time I looked 43 out of the first 46 schools to join the BSF programme were in Labour controlled Borough's were there would be the least resistance to the scheme and contained some of the most run down schools in the system the heads would agree to anything to secure funding.

 

That get's the ball rolling, now just stand back and watch it pick up speed.

 

You know it's all going to end in tears thats for sure...