localzuk

We ended our SMART Notebook subscription last year. The capabilities of the tools in Office etc are more than enough these days. Certainly not worth the many thousands it would've cost us to renew.

We shifted to Vestel touchscreens here. 65" multi-touch 4k interactive screen is less than a grand. 75" just over a grand. Only place this isn't the case so far is maths - they have a specific need to use physical equipment on the display - giant compass', protractors, etc..., so an interactive projector is more suited for their specific use case. If we pay a tiny bit more on top, we can get ones with a built in whiteboard option, so the teacher can turn it on and use it without needing their computer. Surprisingly popular. Especially as you can sign into OneDrive directly on it. Though, it does introduce the question of longevity - how long will that install of Android be maintained and secure?

One thing to take into account with Unifi - the system does not have battery backup, unless you're putting the entire infrastructure on UPSs. The standard setup for a Paxon Net2 door has a battery per controller - so even in a power cut, the doors will work. Honestly, security is not something that should be skimped on. Paxton costs a fair amount, but it does so for a reason.

Bromcom have a library of webinars people can watch at any time. But realistically, its up to the school to ensure their staff are trained. We buy into secondary support through our LEA MIS team, which includes a yearly training package.

Config Manager or Intune can provide that info fairly easily.

A PIN doesn't really fit with the concept of 2FA. The idea is supposed to be you have something you know, and something you have. Password + Fob. Or Password + Phone etc... Password + PIN would be 2 things you know, and therefore can both be breached without needing to get hold of a physical object.

Honestly? If you were having issues getting Bromcom to spit out a report, it most likely means you haven't done the training, as the reporting module is fairly simple once you know how to use it. But then again, not many of us get trained specifically in many of the tools we run. So is difficulty using a system the system's fault, or our own for not getting proper training?

For the original question - it sounds like the account doing the install does not have local administrator permissions. Regarding the security issue, we have disallowed installation of software for over 10 years here now, and in that time I've had a grand total of 1 request to install a home printer driver, and 1 request to install the software for a graphics tablet. All other software is vetted and installed via Config Manager. Coincidentally, we've not had a virus outbreak or malware issue on our network in that time.

Wait, really!? This would lift a huge weight off my shoulders!

The way we do it here is to set up Administrative Units with dynamic membership. Then give that administrative unit "Password Administrator" roles to whoever needs to be able to change passwords. We're a Trust, so do this based on the schools, but you could theoretically split them any way you want.

21CV is a separate signal on the cable - not true VOIP, as far as I know. It runs alongside DOCSIS.

The DfE recommends a minimum of Wifi 6 with multi-gig connections now. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meeting-digital-and-technology-standards-in-schools-and-colleges/wireless-network-standards-for-schools-and-colleges So you would be looking at the U6 Enterprise to comply with their spec.

Do you currently have Azure AD, with password write-back enabled via Azure AD Connect at all? If you do, you could use Microsoft's MyStaff tool. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/roles/my-staff-configure I have it set up here, as a pilot, with one of our more capable members of IT staff and it appears to work well.

Indeed. We just ran our Connect the Classroom contract via the CPC framework - they have a PCR compliant tool for the larger purchases as well (Sourcing Cloud). Makes the whole process a doddle.

We use Snipe-IT. Can add consumables, components etc to that. Just have to remember to keep it up to date!

Honestly, the downtime of onsite kit is considerably higher than the downtime of cloud based services. We have a fraction of the budget to provide enterprise class services, and the expectation of staff these days is that we provide them 24/7 always on access to files and services. Combine this with the huge security risks of running internet facing services from your servers (schools being a regular target of hackers and ne'er-do-wells), and it is fast becoming unfeasible for a school to run all its own on-prem infrastructure. Like all tech, you should have contingencies and redundancies, disaster recovery and backups. Azure may go down occasionally, but MS aren't going to go killing off the service that now provides the largest chunk of its income now.

People in Silicon Valley and similar areas - ie themselves.

Twitter APIs are still there, but the rules are more restrictive. Our Xibo Twitter integration is still working fine. But, looking at our account, we have "Elevated" access, rather than "Essential". You can apply for Elevated via the developer portal apparently.

Are there any posts within the last couple of days? The API only presents posts within a pretty short time-period. EDIT: I should've read the WHOLE post... Yeah, this seems to be an API error. They've probably broken it entirely.

First thing to look at - total cost of the contract. Next, look at your school/trust's financial regulations. That will determine what method you have to use to determine the procurement process. Tender is a slightly fuzzy term, it seems. By tender, I mean "sealed envelope bidding process". Everyone on a level playing field, but the entire process run and organised by the school/Trust. Frameworks are a way of avoiding the above - the tendering process has already been done. What you're actually doing, depending on the particular framework, is running a mini-competition, and then engaging with the call off contract already in place. Indeed for us, our G-Cloud 12 contract was titled a call off contract. Regarding the things you can take into account - this, again, depends on the method of procurement - if you are going to full tender, you cannot disadvantage a new supplier by saying "well, our existing staff know XYZ system, and all our other schools use XYZ system, so it is cheaper". That isn't fair. Some frameworks, however, allow direct award - so you can make your choice entirely based on functionality. So you don't have to run a mini-competition at all (though your school/Trust's financial regulations may require it regardless).

That's insane. My entire energy bill is £160pm during the coldest month so far, December. £117 in gas for the whole month. For a 2 bed flat.

Education has clearly become more and more of a niche for Microsoft. The effort put into EDU SKUs seems to reduce year by year, with most things they do for us being an afterthought. Honestly, I am looking at Autopilot and InTune and wondering how it could possibly do what we want with a shared environment. The big issues with moving to 1:1 are primarily cost, and then training and integrating them into the curriculum. We ran 1:1 schemes for our children for 3 years, and end result? We had increased disruption in lessons due to children forgetting to charge their devices, broken devices etc... And no noticeable improvement in academic performance. So, whilst "Technology and it's implementation has moved on" but the question is - what is the value of it if it is effectively just a cost and not a benefit? Schools should be dictating their needs of technology, not technology dictating the way schools work - and Microsoft (and to an extent Google) need to listen to that.

Sadly, not that simple. First, because the law doesn't really allow that sort of flexibility when deciding in the public sector - there's strict rules to follow. Second, it comes down to the criteria and decisions made by the Trust and how well they stuck to them, and didn't make any unfair decisions or assumptions. Which is why I'm such a proponent of frameworks, and sticking to their guidance/rules like glue. Someone else has done all the risky stuff.

True, but that legal peace of mind may well be worth it!

My main concern with this case is that whilst there does appear to be a win here for Bromcom, the ruling also states that it wasn't intentional by the MAT. The learning exercise being - even with legal advice and trying to do everything right, you could well still get caught out. IMO, its more evidence that schools and MATs should REALLY try to use existing Framework agreements. Most of the legal legwork has been done already. We went with the G-Cloud framework, which allows direct awarding, for example. Oh, and an extension to @elsiegee40's comment - note that most supply contracts usually include clauses about discussing the company or contract during the contract period. So, it may be worth taking that into account (and seeing if such clauses exist and what limitations they apply to you) when commenting publicly.