peterc

She could write her own meal ticket!!

Could be tempted to say that this approach sidesteps the need for each school to develop its own distinctive response to the role of ICT, unless what is described is over and above a school-based response. Additionally, many heads have serious concerns about their capacity to manage the BSF process within their school once the buldozers and builders move in --- whether its a a rebuild or refurb. How much support does each school get, for example, money to second and train a senior manager to act as a Project Manager for the school?

Don't curl up and die like that. They're probably out there now registering for EduGeek with aliases. As it happens, the info about the status of Bristol network guys is probably public domain as the various unions were/are involved, there wouldn't be any NDAs, and the transfer to Northgate probably hasn't impacted yet. Watch this space. What has Becta got to say on this, after all, they promote FITS with vigor and are always organising training sessions?

Sorry for the delay and thanks for asking the $64K question! The first BSF schools are in Bristol where Northgate are the ICT provider and we should be watching very very carefully. There are issues of school autonomy, but often that means the autonomy of a network manager to be run ragged by under-trained teachers on inadequate equipment purchased from who knows where. That autonomy we can all live without. The real autonomy if working on a well and appropriately specified network with staff who really understand what ICT can do, and working with these folk to push the boundaries of teaching and learning. Hey, I just saw a pink fluffy thing fly by my window. But it's a good vision nonetheless

..... and every school should have its own ICT vision document, or at least an educational vision in which ICT is clearly embedded throughout. That must be then compared with the LA vision which should reflect the school's vision.

I've been a teacher since 1981, spent 10 years in IT to 2003, requalified to teach ICT, and have been an education ICT advisor on lots of these BSF and academy projects since 2004. And meant what I said but network technicians and mangers being undervalued. This BSF process might be the time the glass ceiling is shattered!!

I've been sitting in the middle of this process for 3 years now including getting very close for PfS and their ICT team. 1. The default position for Academies being built and funder under the BSF programme is that their ICT will be provided by whoever the Authority appoints. However, they will have the right to ensure their specific interests, values, specialisms etc. are fully reflected in what the ICT provider is offering. That's why there is specific funding to get in professional consultants to help through this process --- this from the Becta framework. 2. Academies can opt out of the Authority provision (and some of the consortia Academy sponsors: Ark, Oasis, ULT have the capacity and purchasing clout to do so), and there is a formal process for so doing. But it ain't easy. That's why it's vital academies keep on top of the BSF process in their authority and keep banging their own drum. 3. Good ICT technicians and managers will never lack for secure and profitable employment. Most are underpaid and undervalued in comparison with what they could earn outside in industry. The service level agreements demanded of the ICT providers under BSF will be so stringent that they will need to engage positively with existing ICT staff, and my observations of these providers recently (can't say where) is that the good ICT technicians and managers should look forward to a rosy future --- with a helluva lot more training, career development and benefits. 4. And if you don't like RM's price list, tell them exactly what you want, how much you can get it for from your own supplier and demand they deliver. RM are very touchy and vulnerable these days and are 'bending over' to break with past perceived restrictive practices. Good luck!

I've been working in the thick of BSF and academies stuff for 2 years and there are serious issues for any school or would be-academy. One major one is their internal capacity to negotiate their way through the ICT implications of BSF (to say nothing of the rebuild or new build issues). One school versus the combined might of the chosen managed service provider, local authority ICT 'experts' plus the authority's ICT consultant/s. Given that most schools ICT management resources are grossly overstretched and underpaid (when will Becta give a lead on recommended levels of in-house ICT management/support?),given that SMT have day jobs to worry about, who will protect the school ethos/vision?