TonySheppardNCC

There are a few things I would address in this response but rather than take it further OT I'll comment on one and ask that we take the rest to email and / or a separate thread. On pretty much all the LA communications about the changes, we have provided contact details for the team should schools wish to discuss things with us. We have made regular updates (monthly) via the Schools Factsheet, updates via the website and direct letters to schools. Many schools have contacted us, on an individual or cluster basis, and many schools have chosen not to, because they have stated that they have the relevant knowledge or expertise available to them (in-house, contracted in or via their new providers). We know that the ability to manage this will vary from school to school, but it has been made very clear from DfE advice that the responsibilty of this belongs to the school. We are, as always, open to discussions with schools, their support providers and their service providers (as we have been previously) about any remaining issues. All parties within the emPSN framework are in direct contact with one another and I know that emPSN staff, KCom and Capita are working on the present issue.

The information in the toolit was pretty agnostic and it was intentionally left for suppliers or schools to come up with options / case studies / FAQs to fill in the gaps. Because of the position of NCC staff it would have been difficult to write 'exit' or 'transition' instructions for services we do not manage and/or have not be part of a procurement to deal with. I would say that it is likely that the movement of some or all services, and the connectivity to/from them, will be a pretty common occurence in the future, but this will partly stem from a desire to change because of schools feeling they are not getting what they want and partly from believing that the grass is greener elsewhere. It is also likely that the cost of change will be missed and it should be a factor when considering options in the future. There is sometimes little benefit to be gained by saving £2000 only for the man hours to cost more than this to do the change. The other consideration is that a change should bring an impact on education (a positive one that is) and quantifying that can sometimes be difficult. If people are writing up their experiences and would like to share them then I would ask that all comments are kept constructive and not delving into 'blame management'. Lessons Learnt are an invaluable addition at the end of any project to help with future projects or even the management of steady state services.

Apologies for the delayed response, I've been out of the office. All incoming Firewall rules should have been transferred 'as is' as KCOM. The MX Records will point at whatever service you chose (eg MailMarshal within the OH service) and then the pointer from MM will go to the specified service (eg OHMail, in-house server, etc). You have kept your existing emPSN WAN IPs so there would be no change there either. If you have taken services from a mixture of different framework suppliers, or are mixing in-house and framework services, then you will have to go through and check that the various services are then sending traffic to the right place.

Changes of DNS are progressing and are being monitored by LAs. Most people are simply asking for a copy of the zone file and asking for the tag to be released. Some are asking for a more managed change such as mentioned above (copy of zone file, replicate DNS with new DNS host, ask for Name Servers to be changed to new Name Servers, ask for TAG to be released to new Registrar, request embc to close down the zone file, set destination on MailMarshall to your new mail server address, change MX records to your new server address, ask embc to remove account on MailMarshall). Some of the above will vary as to the order depending on how and if you are moving mail services, moving connections, etc ... so there is no single perfect example of how to do it and it is expected that if you are taking on separate services that you are capable of organising migrating of services (which most here are). DNS hosting (which is different to DNS resolution) is a core service that needs to be considered and planned carefully. Although it is too late to mention this for this migration, you can be sure that schools will migrate again in the future. Those schools who have moved most smoothly specified the date of most of the above actions when making calls to the desk, they made the calls several weeks in advance and kept the desk informed of any changes to their project plan. For some schools this wasn't needed as they had very simple setups or have simply opted to drop their .sch.uk domain. I will shortly be sharing a paper about the role of .sch.uk domains in schools and part of it is a recommendation that schools still take control and ownership of this domain.

Email services are running on Exchange 2007. There is a price book as part of exit and you need to contact your LA for more support / advice.

Capita staff (along with many other firms) do keep abreast of social media / social networks but, like many companies, cannot take a lot of action on something that has little information. Many firms will also only have certain people keeping a check on things ... and it has been a bank holiday ... but this is getting us off-topic. I'll be following this up shortly.

If anyone is sending any information over to me could they do so via email and to my work address please. Just need to keep track of it all properly (should have made the previous posts on this account ... oops!)

If you change the name of the school then nominet will apply a charge for registering of the new domain. This was previously met by Becta and some LAs / RBCs are covering the costs on this, but in general you have to cover it yourself (IIRC £10), but there is some paperwork involved which needs to be sent to nominet by the school or on teh school's behalf.

The DfE has recently update their advice about procurement of broadband and you can find it at Broadband - Schools ... and it is worth repeating that the present Government policy is not to provide stipulations but there is an expectation that schools will make their own judgements based on established requirements (primarily around curriculum need), effective legislation and the available technology. In Northamptonshire the Schools Broadband Working Group has prepared a decision support document to assist schools making their decision, and it is available on various school websites. We would also recommend you discuss the requirements with your LA, Academy group or other partners as there may be requirement based on how you also take other services. The requirements around filtering are indeed a legal requirement around the safeguarding of children. Advice around this can be found in various locations and I would strongly recommend you have a look at the resources in the eSafety forum on this site, in particular the links to SWGfL and the work they have done with the UK Safer Internet Centre. Some RBCs and companies providing filtering systems (whether as part of RBC provision or for other solutions outside of RBC connections) also provide guidance around the ethics and balance of managing filtering and enabling access to resources. The requirements around SLAs are considered as part of Best Value / Value for Money and are part of the suitability measurement when choosing products / companies to work with. Part of this is the consideration of a managed network or a more bare bones offering. The requirement for access to JANET is two-fold. Firstly is around the use of the NEN, including materials which have been collectively purchased or made available for schools. Having access to JANET does not explicitly give you access to these resources (including the British Pathé materials, Audio Network, and resources from other RBCs which are subsequently made available) as the NEN (or The Education Network as it will be known) is part of a collective group of RBCs and other agencies. However, being on JANET also means that you peer to other associated networks (Universities, government departments, BBC, content providers who have arranged to peer onto JANET, etc) which reduce the latency between the school and these sites.

On the query about whether additional suppliers can join a framework there is the following advice to suppliers from BuyingSolutions at Buying Solutions - about us - supplier zone - procurement plans and current framework agreements. As far as I am aware, this would meant that once the procurement process of creating the framework is completed a supplier cannot join it directly but could operate as a sub-contractor instead. It is also important to remember that when a company is purchased by a larger company the framework provider (in this case DfE and GPS) will check to ensure that the original conditions are still met (financial security, suitability to deliver, suitability of product, etc) and may remove the company from the framework if these are not met to the required standards (ie those established in the original SoR).

The answer is that each LA will operate slightly differently based on the requirements of how schools might be buying back services, services are procured on their behalf and on the LA specific infrastructure is set up. In Northamptonshire a managed line (ie runing your own filtering, etc) is one of the offerings but I cannot go into exact technical specifications at this time, and would only do so with Northamptonshire schools, but it deals with the requests that many Northants school have asked for during the course of the procurement of the framework (and even dating back to requests from the last procurement). Some of the queries around this from LAs have only been dealt with recently and there is the case that it is the holidays, but I am sure there will be more direct and local responses soon.

Frameworks set up by GPS and various Gov't departments are done to allow schools and other pulic sector bodies to purchase on a range of requirements and in the knowledge that a chunk of the procurement work (eg financial suitability, support, etc) has already been done. This allows schools to spend their time focussing on the requirements and the relationship with the companies involved. It is not compulsary to purchase from the framework unless any future funding is tied in with doing so, which is unlikely in the present climate of devolving responsibility. You can choose from the suppliers via mini-competition (with the usual procurement caveats about best value and VfM) but there is no need to go out to full tender (least of all OJEU level) when choosing from suppliers on the framework. If you are choosing a mix of suppliers on and off the framework then you do need to follow your usual full procurement processes (which vary depending on the value of services being purchased). For more advice on procurement please contact your LA or procurement advice service (if taking such a service idependently of your LA, if part of an academy group / free school / UTC or if an independent school), or follow the links of the Dep't for Education website about buying specific goods and services. Buying specific goods and services - Schools

Just to follow up on @synaesthesia and his comment about the LA stepping away I think it might be helpful to repeat Northamptonshire's position. Schools, and it appears the DfE, want us to step away and we have ... as much as we can. The downside is that in spite of trying to share information as much as possible we know that it does not always get to the relevant staff in schools and so try to use any other communication tool we can, including communication via edugeek, twitter and other places, but we try to ensure we keep within the council's communication protocols which are there for a reason (including for responses to FOI requests) and this may, at times, result in direct communication with staff at a school instead of via public forum. This aspect has been discussed with the owners of EduGeek and will be picked up in healthy discussions elsewhere rather than on this thread. Northamptonshire County Council operates on the ethos of helping you to help yourself. For our schools this has meant that since the funds for connectivity and services go directly to schools we will help them make choices, but not make the choices for them. This means that we have not run any central procurement to buy on behalf of schools, but instead have actively worked with the other LAs as part of embc to form emPSN, and to ensure that this framework is suitable for schools. If we mention embc and emPSN a lot it is due to a) the fact that we are members and have to be to allow for maintained schools to draw down from the framework; b) it is the only procurement we have been involved in and as such is the only one we can say is suitable or can give significant information on; and c) it is, in our evaluated opinion and judgement, a suitable solution for schools (depending on what schools choose, how they choose to have it implemented, etc) However, we know it is not our position to make decisions for schools and as such we have worked long and hard with the Schools Broadband Working Group to put together a toolkit to help schools make the decision about what they need and how to check that suppliers can give this to them. This does not, however, run to arranging meetings with suppliers who are not on the emPSN framework as this strays far too much into the realms of the LA getting involved in a procurement ... and we have already done this via emPSN. Any suppliers attending meetings of NetworkNorthants (the local community for IT Support staff and IT Support providers) is done at the request of schools who are members and not at the instruction of the LA. Other than this, trying to regular share what information we have and attending meetings with clusters of schools to help by being as independent as we can as observers (the sales pitch from some suppliers does seem to be slightly different when we are present), but we acknowledge and promote schools making their own evaluated choices.

@localzuk I feel you are mis-reading and mis-representing what I am saying. My comment about different LAs operating differently specifically mentions buyback, where a school or groups of schools may operate within a contract which may or may not include services such as provision of email, connectivity, etc. Whether this is the case or not in this case is not the point, but there are LAs within this region who do so. If a school wants to operate outside of that agreement, basically paying extra, then that can have repurcussions on services, etc. This is still operating within UK and EU procurement law and I have not said anything to said that this should not be followed. You are also mis-representing the relationship and LA and a school has, which will also vary from LA to LA. As the manager of a contract on behalf of schools (they are not a commercial supplier, there is a difference) an LA might seek to ensure that there information which is put out on a public forum is validated, and if they discuss that with the school outside of the public forum it is likely to keep in practice with established communication policies, which are unlikely to involve a public forum such as EduGeek. I have split my accounts to try to show this now but other LAs might have stronger rules to adhere to. We also have to remember that views and opinions posted in public forums can and may reflect your professional representation of your employer. I also think that this would be better as a separate thread if we want to discuss the relationship of schools and LAs. @TonyJF having had conversations previously about how or why LAs might discuss things directly with EduGeek (who have kindly agreed to my split personality now) I would only expect it to be for the most serious of matters for them to get directly involved and didn't even begin to presume that it was teh Mods / Admins who had done anything ... but personally I would leave the discussion around it for the moment until the member in question makes a response or the Mods / Admins do, otherwise we get into all sorts of rumour or conjecture.

Can we just pause a second to reflect without jumping to any accusations of bullying? Without knowing all the facts to start spouting things is neither fair or could actually be just as bad as what others are being accused of. Please remember that different LAs operate different models and buying back services does not always mean that LAs are just a commercial provider the same as anyone else, whether you believe that should be the case or otherwise ... It is also fair to say that members might, on occasion, but up what they believe to be the facts when they don't have the full picture. If an LA, another school or a commercial company get in toouch with that member, on or off edugeek (remembering that for many communication has to be via formal channels) then this is *not* trying to bypass EduGeek or not doing things publicly. It is how communications might be set up for that LA and this will vary across the country. If, on reflection of more facts, the member thinks that the comments might not be a true reflection, or of that member's boss thinks that it might not be a fair representation or might affect other factors and relationships that the school has then yes, a member might remove or change a post or be instructed to change or remove a post ... after all, even on this site you are a public and professional reflection of your school and this has ramifications about what you post. This is neither bullying nor anti-competitive, and what you post online in communities (professional or otherwise) is one of the examples given at the recent eSafety Live conference.

Many thanks for linking to the booking form. It is important to book to make sure we know how many people are coming and to plan for parking. There is good, private parking directly in front of the building but car sharing is always a good idea. Also on the booking form there is a short survey about roles / positions within the NetworkNorthants community. Can Northants folk (including 3rd party support providers who work with Northants schools) please complete the survey and make suitable suggestions. NetworkNorthants Position Survey This is important as this is the last meeting the LA will be directly supporting (as I step down as Vice-Chair) so your involvement is needed.

If a school has commitments which may cost the same or more to extract early then the Academy might seek to continue with a contract until its natural end or the next stop point. This is why some schools are not full Acadmies yet due to arrangements around PFI not being agreed with the PFI contractor.

Short answer ... it will vary depending on your LA as you may be buying in some services via your LA (or buying back services depending on whether you are a school / academy / etc). I can only specifically talk about Northants (hence the account) and we are not involved in signing or running the contract on behalf of schools other than allowing maintained schools to draw down from the framework (formal notification to follow directly to schools in Northants, other LAs may have already given this notification) which is a legal requirement on our part. We are involved in the procurement to ensure suitability (which it is), to ensure flexibility and options for schools (which it gives for our schools) and to help schools make choices about their options (see previous posts on my main account for the toolkit from the Schools Broadband Working group).