Defining our profession

[Ephelyon]

A good point, witch: on their own, no, they won't bother.

 

They'd have to be convinced from higher-up that this is a good idea and the way to be doing it. In other words, they'd have to be made to. This is why I think we would need to look at making representations to BCS, IET, government people (Ministers for Education and those responsible for the nation's ICT strategy, which apparently does exist), Local Authorities, etc. That's the only way it would work. We would have to establish recognition of our cause and links with more important people and bodies first. Some members of this forum do have contacts up there I believe.

[SYNACK]

A good point, witch: on their own, no, they won't bother.

 

They'd have to be convinced from higher-up that this is a good idea and the way to be doing it. In other words, they'd have to be made to. This is why I think we would need to look at making representations to BCS, IET, government people (Ministers for Education and those responsible for the nation's ICT strategy, which apparently does exist), Local Authorities, etc. That's the only way it would work. We would have to establish recognition of our cause and links with more important people and bodies first. Some members of this forum do have contacts up there I believe.

 

Problem with government mandates, at least here is that they are open to being adapted into tools for 'interested parties'. How it works here is the clueless who run things ask 'trusted' industry partners to spec what is needed or in essence write down what they would like to provide that loosely fits the bill and honors their interests. The govenment then mandates this and claims that it has got input from everyone that matters and a generally substandard product that diverts a huge amount of money into the 'trusted industry partners' pockets is implemented.

 

I have seen this happen again and again due to the lack of clue possesed by the people making the decisions and the blatent smarmy behaviour exhibited by the 'chosen' providers. I imagine the ones that provide the best bribes get the most input.

[Ephelyon]

Very true!

 

I suppose the only way to make it work would be to ensure it's all kept inside the public sector and specify that as a core criterion for success when making our various representations.

[Andie]

It all sounds lovely but my question is - why would schools bother to implement any sort of plan like this?

There are many, many primary techs, part-time like me, who struggle along with no training and no money,(paid more than a TA, yes, but not a lot!) doing stuff that many a (possibly junior-but-probably-paid-more) tech in a senior school never sees (from setting up GPO to sorting out buying of equipment to speccing up new wireless etc). We cope. We have to bring in external companies sometimes - perhaps due to knowledge issues or, more likely, time constraints.

They reap the benefits and things work.

How will we ever change that?

 

Thank you! I was planning on saying something similar myself further up, but couldn't quite get it to sound right...and then started thinking that maybe it's just me doing things this way and managing somehow... So it isn't just me and my situation and the way I feel about the job! What a relief! And I guess we are going to struggle to get school management to change while we're doing a good job on so little. However, I would still welcome access to a basic set of recognised qualifications. Although I'm doing the best I can under the circumstances, I could make fewer mistakes and do things a lot quicker if I had the right training and it should be possible for school management to realise this. It's hard at the moment to find the time to work out what the best qualification would be, with so many around. A professional body that laid down a basic set of training would help me to go to senior leadership and make a sound case for some CPD.

[alttab]

Although I'm doing the best I can under the circumstances, I could make fewer mistakes and do things a lot quicker if I had the right training and it should be possible for school management to realise this. It's hard at the moment to find the time to work out what the best qualification would be, with so many around. A professional body that laid down a basic set of training would help me to go to senior leadership and make a sound case for some CPD.

 

i think that's it, exactly. When i've worked under situations without the guidance of an experienced technical leader or not received the training, i've found that i've managed [because you have to right ?] and possibly learnt more than would be the case had it been outsourced because i've had to deliver....but i've always been under the suspicion that i could be a lot more efficient, and there was always room to improve how i was setting up a system or process[and if only i knew what that better method was!! aside from coming on to a forum and getting several different answers]

Or just seeing how other folk first hand have set things up and choosing the best bits.

[Ephelyon]

A professional body that laid down a basic set of training would help me to go to senior leadership and make a sound case for some CPD.

 

Quite so!

 

That's precisely what I'm trying to see if we can achieve here. To get a national qualification and pay/career structure in place (which would be considerably easier if it weren't on its own, but rather part of a broader rethink of school support staff pay and conditions like the SSSNB's original remit included), so that people like Andie and witch can get a better deal and have their interests represented. On the 'representation of interests' score, and because the scale of it would require some leaning much higher up (i.e. central government, or at least local government), I therefore think we might find it interesting to hear from people like BCS. Maybe there could be a deal whereby they'd be willing to make the case as long as those of us who are interested become members, which I for one would be quite willing to do if it would help to make it happen.

 

@GrumbleDook, do you know if there have been any rumblings in that direction of late?

[Kitkatninja]

This is something that Trevor at the FITS Foundation is trying to start off - a Professional IT Association or Insititute for Educational IT Staff to assist with this sort of stuff.

 

However the FITS foundation needs to know what volume of technicians would join such a body if it were created? To get support for anything like this they need to have firm evidence that there is a need for it and that a lot of people are crying out for it. To get agreement for it to be an Institute you need Government approval and to get that they need to see that it fills a real need.

 

I've posted a thread/poll here, please answer.

 

Thanks

Edited June 24, 2012 by Kitkatninja
link added

[Ephelyon]

Thanks wagnerk, a very useful idea!

[Kitkatninja]

Thanks wagnerk, a very useful idea!

 

No worries, the development of the it profession is something I believe in.

[X-13]

Its more alright for primary school techs who may not have as much experience but I do end up wondering what these people are actually paid to do as they seem to offload anything more complicated than changing a mouse.

 

Not really.

 

You're paid to do a job. [thing] is part of that job.

 

Hiring [company] to do [thing] means the school is paying for the job to get done twice.

 

 

Then again, lack of training [and the money to pay for it] results in schools not trusting you/me/others to do it.

 

Yeah, I could PROBABLY do it. But, it'll take a bit longer as I'm learning while doing [which, personally, I prefer] and it may not be the best way... Plus, it may have to be redone/fixed because I made a mistake/oversight because I'm still learning.

 

If people aren't given the chance to show they can do something, people are going to assume they can't. Especially if all the previous opportunities were passed on to external contractors.

[witch]

Not really.

 

You're paid to do a job. [thing] is part of that job.

 

Hiring [company] to do [thing] means the school is paying for the job to get done twice.

 

 

Then again, lack of training [and the money to pay for it] results in schools not trusting you/me/others to do it.

 

Yeah, I could PROBABLY do it. But, it'll take a bit longer as I'm learning while doing [which, personally, I prefer] and it may not be the best way... Plus, it may have to be redone/fixed because I made a mistake/oversight because I'm still learning.

 

If people aren't given the chance to show they can do something, people are going to assume they can't. Especially if all the previous opportunities were passed on to external contractors.

 

Firstly - as a basic tech (as I am in one of my schools), the job description is pretty clear and there really is quite a lot of stuff that I am NOT paid to do. So getting someone in from outside is not paying for it twice. Of course, most of the time I do just do it and so actually for the money they pay me the school is getting a really good deal.

Secondly - it is me who decides whether things go to external contractors so it isnt that I dont get the chance to show what I can do from a tech perspective - it is almost always a time/tools/not a job for one person issue that stops me being able to do the more complex stuff. And as you say, there is no allowance for the mistakes I would inevitably make, and if you are talking about a new server build then that could be fairly major!

[X-13]

Firstly - as a basic tech (as I am in one of my schools), the job description is pretty clear and there really is quite a lot of stuff that I am NOT paid to do. So getting someone in from outside is not paying for it twice. Of course, most of the time I do just do it and so actually for the money they pay me the school is getting a really good deal.

Secondly - it is me who decides whether things go to external contractors so it isnt that I dont get the chance to show what I can do from a tech perspective - it is almost always a time/tools/not a job for one person issue that stops me being able to do the more complex stuff. And as you say, there is no allowance for the mistakes I would inevitably make, and if you are talking about a new server build then that could be fairly major!

 

 

I was talking from my own experience. I'm part-time [15 hours] and my original job spec said I was supposed to be doing infrastructure installs [not qualified], software package building [not experienced] and various other things I've never done before.

 

Also, the choice to pass it over to external companies wasn't mine to make.

[GrumbleDook]

A few things on this discussion.

I started to get conversation going with BCS Membership and a few others to try and look at what the barriers are to the idea of IT Support staff being regarded as professionals ... but there was very little input from others (partly due to it being a *busy* time so it might be worth trying it again in a few weeks) and I am not representative of all IT Staff ... and have a slightly different agenda, one based around raising the levels of accountability between support staff and their school, helping schools understand how to use that to improve their choices on tech and the difference those choices make.

 

There is a difference between most primary schools and most secondary schools ... and a range of differences in between those as well. This is not a bad thing or a good thing ... just a 'thing'.

 

There is nothing wrong with buying in expertise or time from others to do things. I do read some condescending things at times on here about people *not* doing their own server installs ... or even building a server ... or building workstations ... and just because someone chooses to buy in time or expertise from others it does not devalue the role someone plays in a school. An example would be the number of folk who buy in cablers. Many here can do cabling pretty well, to verifiable standards and with associated warranties ... but that is not always the best use of their time and so they pay others instead. Why is that so different to someone who hasn't got the skills buying someone in?

 

This applies to setting up or installing any service to enable IT in a school. If it is more effective to get someone else to do it then that is fine. Some of the best IT managers I have come across do very little hands-on now but manage contracts with others instead. It is a slightly different skill-set but is equally as important and effective *when used properly*.

[hardtailstar]

Im a primary school tech in two schools, I work 30 hours a week with different time split between the schools,

 

At one school i have to ring in contractors to do installs of any nature as I dont have the time to while im there and they wont pay me over time for something I have little knowledge in if they can hire a contractor who knows more than i do and this way ive built up a good rep with the contractors that i will take to other jobs as i move on.

 

At the other school I do 95% of the work for installtions etc and only the jobs that may take a few days I might get a contractor in if i havent got the time. This school is quite happy for me to do things i may have little knowledge in so that I learn for future use around the school.

 

Im paid much less than a tech in a secondary school and yet i seem to be doing the same job and sometimes more. (had a chat with local secondary school about thier jobs)

[SYNACK]

I do read some condescending things at times on here about people *not* doing their own server installs ... or even building a server ... or building workstations ...

 

to continue the theme

 

This applies to setting up or installing any service to enable IT in a school. If it is more effective to get someone else to do it then that is fine. Some of the best IT managers I have come across do very little hands-on now but manage contracts with others instead. It is a slightly different skill-set but is equally as important and effective *when used properly*.

 

Hence their support for cloud everything as it is more in their skillset?

 

Buying in some things is alright but claiming oneself as lord of all knowledge while outsourcing every little thing all while being paid double what I do just winds me up. I have run into more than a few of these people and it is just depressing when the paper pushers poison the well for those who actually know how to do the job directly.

[Ephelyon]

I think GD makes a good point. I contracted out the installation of our new WiFi recently (not the technical setup and config of the managed solution, just the physical installation of the APs around the school), not because I can't scrabble around in ceiling ducts myself, but because it isn't a very good use of my time.

 

hardtailstar is giving us some very good examples of the fact that there's just as much diversity within primaries as regards their approach to IT as there is in secondaries.

 

I imagine that establishing professional standards - along with the support and training for the professionals in order to meet them - would be a good way of raising the accountability of (in this case) IT staff to their individual schools. I'm sure there's other work to be done too on that one though.

[GrumbleDook]

Buying in some things is alright but claiming oneself as lord of all knowledge while outsourcing every little thing all while being paid double what I do just winds me up. I have run into more than a few of these people and it is just depressing when the paper pushers poison the well for those who actually know how to do the job directly.

 

If it gives the same or better resources and facilities to the school, costs less overall and is more flexible .. is that a bad thing? And where does that put someone in a larger organisation who doesn't do things hands on anymore but manages those who do? Say, for example, someone working in Service Management ... a service desk team leader?

 

If we want an analogy ... take a building site. The Foreman doesn't have to work as a brickie, a chippie, a spark, etc ... but makes sure they do the job. It doesn't mean they can't ... but it is usually a better use of their time if they don't.

[Ephelyon]

I guess in schools it's a question of role allocation. In some, like mine, there's no room for a senior technical specialist and a hands-off strategic manager: they have to be the same person (although in fact the Head is the official lead on ICT Strategy at my place and bears the overall responsibility for that).

 

The problem is that not all schools recognise which role they need. Some might be employing people who are better suited to the hands-off management role, but without enough technical hands-on staff below them to actually make it work. Or they might be employing technical specialists without the co-ordinating management above, assuming the environment is large enough that this is necessary and appropriate, and instead delegating it to some teacher or other who doesn't really understand the issues at hand.

 

I imagine both GrumbleDook and SYNACK are right, but whether or not either approach will work would depend on whether the school deploys its staff effectively - and trains them properly for their roles - and whether Senior Leadership maintains a level of oversight appropriate to the team.

[SYNACK]

If we want an analogy ... take a building site. The Foreman doesn't have to work as a brickie, a chippie, a spark, etc ... but makes sure they do the job. It doesn't mean they can't ... but it is usually a better use of their time if they don't.

 

The foreman generally knows most of what is required at least to a certain degree. It just keeps reassuring me that IT is a bad place to be as is anywhere where you actually do stuff directly. All the money, power and respect is saved for those who tell others what to do and the least respected most thankless position is the one who actually does the work. Government, banking sector, middle managment, most of it seems to be about making up work, upointing it is the height of value and then devaluing all those who do the actual jobs so that their pay and respect can be vacumed up into ever increasing levels of managers for managers all in a race to make up enough work and paperwork to justify their positions.

 

I admit that I am very cynical but there is more than a little truth in the above which would take quite a dose of denial to deny.

[witch]

I was talking from my own experience. I'm part-time [15 hours] and my original job spec said I was supposed to be doing infrastructure installs [not qualified], software package building [not experienced] and various other things I've never done before.

 

Also, the choice to pass it over to external companies wasn't mine to make.

Goodness, this just shows that the employers have no idea of how much time, effort and expertise these things take.

I've been lucky, I suppose, that my employers don't really know what the job entails.

[Ephelyon]

This is lucky for some and unlucky for others; one of the downsides can be that, because they don't realise just how complicated, demanding and responsible your job is, they don't pay you enough for it!

[X-13]

This is lucky for some and unlucky for others; one of the downsides can be that, because they don't realise just how complicated, demanding and responsible your job is, they don't pay you enough for it!

 

Like most things, it's all about communication.

 

They say what they want/expect you to do. You say what training/equipment you want/need to do it.

 

If training can't be provided, do what I do. Shadow contractors and "supervise". [make a mental note of what they're doing, write it down as soon as you can and double check online later.]

[witch]

 

If training can't be provided, do what I do. Shadow contractors and "supervise". [make a mental note of what they're doing, write it down as soon as you can and double check online later.]

 

Oh I do, I do. But as I have two jobs every day, inevitably I have to leave and miss some vital bit of information! My local contractor and I have a really good relationship and the techs are very happy to let me follow what they do and they even stop and give me time to write it all down!

[Andie]

I'm part-time [15 hours] and my original job spec said I was supposed to be doing infrastructure installs [not qualified], software package building [not experienced] and various other things I've never done before.

 

 

Gulp! On 15 hours a week???! We definitely need a professional body!

[Ephelyon]

On a different but slightly related note, I have this week succeeded in appealing to our LA to upgrade the Network Manager JDQ that I was under from what we call Grade 7 (i.e. SCP 25-29) to Grade 8 (i.e. SCP 29-34). Currently this applies only to me but it may leave room for other NMs in similar situations to have their jobs regraded likewise. Similar moves may also be possible for IT Technician positions (perhaps even in primary schools).

 

I gather this has not been done before for positions like this. I am reasonably well-versed in the NJC job evaluation scheme as it applies to these roles now, so if anyone is interested, please PM me.