donutcat

I tried with IE8, Chrome, and this morning have tried with IE9 which works... Always the simple things that we forget to check. Thanks for the prompt.

I am having the same error showing as the first screenshot. Server is server 2008R2 .net is 4.0 full, fully up to date. other asp sites load no problem, HAP loads not problem, but the setup doesn't just throws an error on page warning line 1828 char 34. Interestingly a lot of the settings I can change but the AD selection etc, just doesn't load. Any help would be appreciated as I have to take room booking from the ICT teacher in september, and want to use something a littler better than their excel spreadsheet solution. DC

Any ideas of what to do if you can't get LDAP connected to websites? I've looked at MRBS, CRBS, and still have nto got a solution that reads sims timetables, and integrates to active directory, but runs on my own web servers (no external ip). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. DC

Need a new member for my team, anyone interested? Impington Village College - Vacancies DC.

I had problems authenticating against, AD, and followed through this thread. Everything else worked, but as soon as I replaced the dll everything came to life. Excellent project, really impressed with the booking system concept, especially dealing with SIMS!

I have deleted the two flightsim folders yet still it works, I put them back and disabled access to them both, but still it works.. Any more suggestions? DC

COUNTIF won't work as it works with only one set criteria, SUMIF won't count, it sums, so you will have to do the calculation in two parts. Create a new column on the right that will do the double IF statement, i.e. if a is the number you are looking for and b has the letter you are looking for then assign a value of 1, else leave the column empty. Then just sum the column. I have attached and example with the formulas in. If you wanted to add this function to lots of different sheets it may be worth writing a macro, but the formulas are not too arduous. Any probs PM me. example double countif.xls

It is likely that i-Tec will bid for the borough BSF project though, but in a completely different guise and setup following the 'proposed' disaggregation of the shared services engaged by Central Beds. As long as partnership education don't get it I'm not worried either way, it's so unlikely we will be asked for our technical input the outcome won't be affected by those of us who actually run school IT departments. DC

Isn't it a shame this whole thread exists. Why take a really good idea, fixing/rebuilding all secondary schools, and force the people involved to have to choose their IT aliances to get it. Seperate out the projects, have a building programme that looks at buildings, and then have an IT programme that asseses and upgrades failing IT departments/systems/approaches. I have never been checked on what I do in school by any authority other than school managers, and although I am the expert employed to manage the IT direction of the school, it would be good to know that someone is checking on me and others, stopping schools getting into the IT mess that BSF is trying to fix on the back of the buildings projects in the first place. That is all. DC

We have now found a workaround. Following a complete uninstall clear the registry of anything to do with "smart technologies" and "smart technolgoies inc" and install again. Problem goes away even with the latest software release. I think one of the entries is a hangover from older version of the software that is still being used by version 10. Hope it works for you guys. DC

I have the same error after upgrading from senteo, but only when I open notebook directly. If I open notebook from the senteo menu it reports an error to smarttech, if I open it from welcome to notebook from the smartboard menu it works fine. Educational software strikes again methinks... Any workarounds or fixes would be much appreciated. DC

As someone who is about to go through the TUPE process into an academy I have been asking these sorts of questions to HR, my union rep and the academy and have had the following responses: How long are my pay and conditions protected for? The law does not state for support staff any minimum length, however you cannot be disadvantaged because of the transfer, i.e. any change in my situation not caused by the transfer can be put through after the transfer has happened, although in our case the academy has agreed to the 3 years that teachers get. Can I be made redundant after the transfer? Yes it is possible, but only if the job role disappears because of a change not connected to the transfer, for example a restructure of the organisation after the transfer has happened, and there would have to be bullet-proof evidence that it was not planned before the transfer. Can my contract change for the better, and is that protected? Any change in pay or terms and conditions must be agreed by both parties, but keeps your basic pay and conditions protected if you do not agree to them. If you do agree and sign a new contract then you are a normal employee, although I didn't get enough clarification on this point to satisfy me that I knew fully what would happen. What if there are less jobs at my hierarchical level? This may be an academy specific questions, as with a move to an established company things would be different. We have been guaranteed no reduction in staff number, and that there would be a job matching process. If there is no job at the level i am at, then I would drop to the next level down and be matched in there, with no detriment to my pay or conditions. What about pensions? Local government pension carries on, and continuity of service is unaffected while I remain employed by the academy. If my new positions was on a lower pay scale than mine my pensionionable pay would reduce to meet that. This is not the same as teachers as their pension is fully protected. It is also worth noting that if I leave the academy to work for another school that is still in the local authority my length of service restarts from 0, as I am deemed not to have transferred from one internal division to another. This would be the same if TUPE'd to RM and then went back to schools. Feel free to check with your unions reps, as most TUPE processes are tailored to the needs of the transfer. DC

ICT Technician required The hours are 37 per week, either term time only, plus five additional training days or 52 weeks per year. The scale for this position is level 3, points 15-19, giving a salary range of £15,849 to £17,574 per annum for the full time position. Hours of work will be by agreement and starting salary will be dependent on experience. The closing date for applications is 21 January 2009 and proposed interview date is 26 January 2009. Website to look at is Welcome to the John Bunyan School Website go to the vacancies section for more information. Donucat

Has anyone actually managed to get a blocked site unblocked? I tried one this week, but have got no response, no access, no nothing. At least tell us you got the message. right?

The second try in bedfordshire was in fact just for Bedford itself, but has now been stopped as the county council (them trying to get it through) are being dismantled and replaced by two unitary authorities who don't want to annoy the electorate. It is possible the Bedford Borough will take a poll of parents again when they take over schools, but that won't be until next year. As for county trying to push it through before hand, it seems unlikely as all county decisions that affect long term strategy for the unitary councils have to be passed through the new councils implementation committees. Yes that's three committees that must agree to something before anyone can do it, and it was hard enough with one! As for BSF an middles I'm not sure, as a school about to go academy, we have a different set of goals, and it will be expected that the academy sets up for two tier education, even in the three tier system. Initially this may be by including a middle school in the new build, and effectively operating two schools from one campus, or simply extending the building programme depending on what the unitary decides nearer the time. DC

Made my blood boil, until I read the end part explaining that he is a salesman, they lie worse/better (depends on perspective) than politicians. I wonder how many governors will believe all that b*ll*cks?

Woo and Yay I'm on the list! My school is on that list, and we are set to go academy in the next couple of years. We have had several meetings where information has been delivered to us regarding academy status and BSF and all that malarkay. As far as I have been made aware, the acedamy status is not only for failing schools, but also for those who are expected to do better than they are doing, if that makes sense. It is also a way of accessing the BSF money early, but will probably operate outside the LEP as it will be down to the academy board to decide one what happens with the school. In terms of outsourcing IT, as it is not the standard BSF project, it is likely to be an academy decision, but where there are other schools in the area with BSf in place, they will be more than likely to go down that route. Here we will be the first to receive the funding, and are therefore more likely to go our own way. This is all based on information given to us, quite what will happen will depend a lot on the academy sponsors, and the eventual academy board, and principal. Lots of change, hopefully for the better, but the BSf worries are still present. DC

We assist all local school whenever asked, we also set up our own network of IT Techs that meets up once or twice a term to challenge LA share best practice and experience. We also take calls from them and other school giving assistance and advice where necessary. We're about to go academy so i'm sure that will happen more and more. It's a good thing as long as the financial stuff is handled.

From an IT managers perspective it's not just about the day to day running, but also in the being availbale to talk with staff and strategise how you can meet upcoming requirements before the teaching staff even realise they will need it. Design of IT suites, linked up planning with other school systems not only because no one else wants to do it, but because for each project even as small as an offic emove will involve technology. If we are not in our schools, how will the non-technical be able to think technically? DC

The point I was trying to raise is that a lot of the innovation we do happens after chance encounters in the corridors or in the staff rooms. Teacher: Wouldn't it be great if we could do X Techie: I think we can, give me a little time and I'll see what I can do. There will be no one on site that will do that. Any change the teachers want to make however small will have to be thought out a presented to the MSP. Teachers (sweeping generalisation coming) are happy to accept what they have, and in many cases do not realise what computers are capable of. If there is no techie with a steady authoritative hand on the tiller how will any clear direction of evolution be reached? That is why I am trying to shape the BSF project as it happens here. I too am not wholly against the process, our building is our major weakness, and we are prepared to make many sacrifices to resolve it, however we are only here to care about the kids educations and from my position ensure that what the teachers want to do with the computers can be done, even if they do not realise it can be. @Grommit - It would appear to me that the implementation that has been forced on you has not been well thought out, and you have a very rough deal. It may be too late for your school right now, but it may come good again in the future. @GD - A strong fight may be what's necessary, but it has to be supported locally as you state that all waves and LA approaches are difficult, if we can share experience then we can act with best practice. You are right we are not a group or union that can be reasoned with as a whole, which is why we have no broad political power, but we must still attempt to protect what we think is right, and that sometimes means taking agressive steps like trying to involve the teaching unions who still have power. I will be using my staff here to defend the concept of in house IT management if I cannot get the LA to listen to me, and I hope the situation does not get completely out of hand, but it has the potential to, and we all need to think through the potential outcomes of any action, or inaction we take. DC

The on site technical people will either not be able to respond to anything without first going through the call centre, or they will have to log the support call before they do anything. More to the point, they won't be being paid to give immediate assistance, unless it is specifically listed in the outline business specification for the managed service provider to include that as a service. How many other unseen services that we give throughout the normal day will be missed? DC

I am aware that as a county we are at the stage before writing the output specs, the county are selecting ICT consultants to begin this process. I will be trying my hardest to get myself and other techs from my region into the consultation process. Our plan at the moment is to team up with our current county managed service and make a business case for increasing their services and putting them and us together as one support team. @Grommit I do fully understand the purpose of this thread, my finishing comment was one of glib defeat, however if you think that by simply involving the press we will get the consultation process I think we are after you may be misguided. The pushing behind the BSF program appears to be the government who will not back down. Education is more political than it should be which leads to seemingly random decisions. The only people with power to stop the BSF program are the teaching unions, who quite rightly are placing the benefit of the new buildings above the potenital detriment of losing internal IT. I can fully appreciate the centiment that Grommit articulates, and I too have been expressing my frustration at what seems to me to be a step away from the goal that IT in schools should be aiming for. I would like to thank Broc for responding with practical advice as to my next moves with the BSF program. DC

Broc, It is exactly that schools are not being informed that we are in such uncertainty. All we can do at this stage is to highlight to as many people that we need to be listened to. Or that we, as educational IT professionals have misgivings, not only concerning our own jobs, but the good of the education our children will be receiving. What the teachers, governors, LAs LEPs and eventually government do about it is out of our hands. The BSF pricipal is good the implementation is what we are questioning and want input on. To make our point, first we must be heard. How we do that I don't know. Any Ideas? DC

You're quite correct it is no bad thing, for those schools who do not take it seriuosly, and for the government to take it seriously. The biggest problem is the manner in which it is being implemented. A blanket cover is not going to give the best results, a measured approach, tested against pre-set BECTA (if necessary) guidelines with optional correction is better. Test the school, if they are below the required level give them the choice of sorting it out themselves, or buy into a managed service to get them there quickly. This would be a better use of taxpayers money, but it is harder to give quality management information to show the benefit of each as neither of the two approaches has been tested on mass. The rollout of BSF ICT projects as the stand have not been done, and although they are being touted as better than the school has, because what the school has is an unknown, the MSP service has not been tested either because there is nothing to test against. What we may see is the implementation of manages services to all BSF schools, who after their contract turn back to in house. It is what has happened in Bedfordshire with the county provided managed service. Why do schools need in house when the option has been there for some time to go managed. Why, when as a county, we have a central managed service provider do schools have in house staff. I would suggest that it is because the managed service route did not work and schools had to respond from their own budgets to fill the gap. The government did not suppor them with proper funding, and now are using the BSF money to blackmail schools into conforming to an IT provision that has failed before. Roll on 5 years after BSF hits, then we can do our jobs again. DC

I have yesterday been given a copy of the guidance our county head teachers are receiving from the BSF board in our area following a techies meeting (we have them once a term). The guidance gives three options for discussion, none of which include keeping in school IT. There is to be no consultation on ICT provision that includes in house staff. The BSF project for the county will include ICT consultants to pick the managed service provider, and there will be no consultation with existing staff. How can this be a measured, every child matters approach. This is purely a pie cutter stamp out another school approach rather than letting schools with specific needs get a system that is tailored to them. We do very different things here than other schools in the area, as our student body demands different approaches from us, how can that not be recognised by BSF projects, the overall process and partnerships for schools. My only hope is that when schools are asked to assist in writing the SLA and service provision spec the staff here ask for what they have now and are not persuaded by the promises of the MSP. Bearing in mind that the systems and concepts promised that are not currently available are down to money not being available to us to set them up now. I've had a couple of rants so far, but I have a feeling there will be many more to come. DC