[ubuntu-uk] School websites

[Tony Pursell]

On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 23:08 +0100, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> On 23/06/2011 20:19, Grant Sewell wrote:
> >
> > To an extent, I agree with you.  However, there is also the argument
> > that RM et al are merely services and if the people to whom they are
> > providing a service demand XYZ then it would be inappropriate for RM et
> > al to provide PQR instead.
> 
> Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Companies like RM tender to the 
> LEA NOT to individual schools.

What has happened then to 'Local Management of Schools'?  When I was a
school governor, admittedly some 20 years ago, schools could opt out of
the LEA negotiated contracts.  

> If a school (or a teacher) decides it want a particular piece of 
> software then RM has to "validate" it first. If it fails "validation" 
> then RM won't install it, no matter what the teacher wants, or how good 
> the software id or who produces it. They exert a VERY tight control on 
> what is installed on "their" systems...(I know - my wife works for a 
> very large provider of Educational Software - probably the largest in 
> the world, and they STILL have to have their products go through this 
> "validation" process)
> 
> 
> > Get the teachers on board, the school will follow, the LEAs after that
> > and the service providers will either have to change their service or
> > risk not being the service provider any more.
> >
> See above....in the present setup companies like RM are there to make 
> money, NOT to provide a service. The hoops software suppliers have to 
> jump through is unbelievable.
> RM and their ilk are acting like 1980's IT depts...they allow only what 
> softwareTHEY approve of.
>