Sorry for the dragging of this thread further away from the original subject, but... The problem is this: IT is a high knowledge profession, and the competent, experienced people within it command fairly large salaries. Schools have traditionally not employed IT people from this category, and while some have still been lucky enough to get IT staff with potential, once these staff realise their potential, they almost invariably move on. This results in little or no continuity in even the best cases, and the final result in the majority of schools is poor quality IT solutions, where problems are normal, rather than the exception. I hasten to point out that (i) there are some exceptions and (ii) there are a lot more cases where schools tell me they have good IT solutions in place which turn out to be not good at all and/or only relatively good (as in relative to other schools in the area). The point is this: it is no harder to install, maintain or configure a Linux/open source solution than a Windows or Mac one. It just looks harder... There's an assumption that because someone can configure their home Windows PC, they'll be quite capable of designing, installing, configuring, maintaining and managing a Windows based network with 1200 users on 300 machines, 8 servers running 20 essential services including email, web, AV, firewall, desktop control, printing management, MIS and any number of poorly written and documented specialist applications. But if it's not Windows, then they won't be able to. Fact: both the above assumptions have no basis in reality. Good IT solutions are not bought, they're made. And made by people who have the capability to do so, rather than just lucky. This is why outside of education, the salaries paid to IT people mark it out as a highly paid occupation. Sensibly enough, few of the highly paid and respected IT professionals from outside education are tempted by a 50% cut in salary and a 100% reduction in status (there are a few naive ones who felt that money wasn't everything and assumed that their professional standing would always command the respect of their work colleagues - but then they start work in the school ;-) ). Before anyone assumes that this is just bitterness, after 3 years I have managed to comfortably demonstrate that a school that allows itself to be guided in its IT strategy by people with sufficient knowledge and interest to do so spend less and gain more; enough that my salary and that of at least some members of my team is now enough to discourage a move (back) to the commercial sector. What's actually driving this mini-essay is that over and over again I hear of or experience incredibly misguided IT decisions that cost the school/LEA much money and time, which then cost more money to fix. Much time is thus spent without an effective IT solution to aid the department/school/LEA in delivering high quality information systems that effectively support management or teaching and learning. Teachers in particular then become very disillusioned with IT, and start to assume it's a burden rather than a boon. The change that is desperately needed in education in the UK is the involvement of quality IT staff at the highest level; people who schools can turn to for, and receive from, useful, informed and independent advice about the best way to achieve high returns from the IT investment. The sad thing is that this is rarely available - the advice source is either not knowledgeable or financially biased to a particular product set. I've just been interviewed for a Masters dissertation on the use of open source software in schools. One of the questions was "Do you think the money provided by the government for schools IT has been sufficient to achieve the targets set?" My instant answer, "No... But it should have been." Cheers Chris -----Original Message----- From: David Bowles To: suse-linux-uk-schools@suse.com Sent: 7/4/03 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Microsoft and Exam Boards and the OFT My observations are all based on my own experience plus some input form ICT professionals and teachers working in the school education field. <snip> However what's going to make the biggest difference to Open Source use in education is the availability of high quality closely integrated open-source systems software, applications and courseware that's simple to install, configure and maintain. Possibly the three biggest potential niches are these; 1. Samba / Linux based servers initially used as standby devices or to increase network reliability and availability of school networks -- a big issue in many schools where downtimes of up to a whole month are not uncommon! Once ICT staff see and understand the benefits of Open Source based server solutions they may be more inclined to abandon Microsoft based solutions. 2. Many schools have got lots of slow old hardware kicking around. Furthermore, many schools can easily acquire lots more low- or no- cost hardware thrown out by upgrading commercial organisations. So there is a niche for 'thin client' Linux / Open Source server and client systems software and applications. 3. Maybe the biggest niche is for Open Source office applications and courseware that students can run on their home PCs. Many home PCs also don't have a full office suite installed on them, so there is a need for an 'Open Office' based students distribution that might / might not also include Linux. Furthermore a considerable proportion of students still don't have access to a home PC -- or only severely restricted access. Maybe when schools upgrade they can could supply their PCless students with a Linux / Open Office based PC. Overall, the biggest problem I see for Open Source in schools is the initial 'getting the foot in the door'. What the Open Source movement really needs is some 'must have killer application' that starts teachers and school ICT staff on their journey up the Open Source learning curve. David Bowles Education Support / TeacherLab