Software for Schools Deal
In my last post about the Software for schools package I recieved a reply from Paul, who works at the Ministry. I have worked with Paul in the past and I believe the question he asked was worth more than just a threaded reply
Here is Pauls original comment and below it my responce;
“Good thoughts Andrew. As a Ministry employee trying to do the best for schools I have noticed that (often) when the Ministry makes a selection for schools the response is “Give us the money and let us decide how to use it” and when the Ministry does not make a selction we hear “You know best so select and tell us”. 
Maybe a posting on criteria to decide when restricted choice might work better and when to leave it open? With so many able commentators I am sure it would prove useful to me.”
Hi Paul
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate that you do feel like your are “piggy in the middle” with this.
However, the ministry does apply a one size fits all model when it comes around to funding software. The model is essentially if you are an apple school you get X and if your are a PC school you get Y and if you are not you get $0.
I also realise it is a sliding scale with the schools able to add more PC’s/Apples and the ministry expected to pick up the cost as the number of machines changes through out the term/year/contract duration.
I would prefer to see a scale of options available with responcibilty loaded onto the schools. Essentially it is this.
Each eligible school has a series of choices or levels
Level 1. Standard complete package which is MinEdu provides OS, and software.
level 2. No iWorks/Office package. Schools agree to purchase/install a suitable productivity tool & are provided with funding to the value of the productivity package to be invested in ICT – this is an accountable process
level 3. Only OS package – Schools agree to purchase/install a suitable productivity tool, networking, Antivirus, etc are provided with funding to the value of the productivity/networking/AV package to be invested in ICT – this is an accountable process
level 4. Self supported – Schools are provided with equivilent funding but not access to any of the tools/technologies. Again this is accountable. The school must provide certain minimums
I suspect that many schools if presented with this would opt for the complete package and that other would also opt for the 2 level which is No productivity tools, choosing to use a recognised Open Source tools like Open Office and reinvest in other technologies to enhance learning.
I believe schools should/MUST have a choice. The package delivered by the ministry is not comprehensive enough for students in the 21st Century. It is not enough to just deliver a word processor, data processing tools and presentation tool and some elements of the infrastructure. We can not limit our students to just these tools, this is stiffling creativity.
Thanks Paul for you reply, I appreciate you comments and openness to discussion.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Great idea Andrew. I think that a scheme like this could really work. It would be really interesting to see how much money would fit into each of the brackets. I hope your friend and his colleagues at the Ministry are paying close attention to these posts of yours. Keep up the good work.
[Reply]
August 26th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
[...] link is being shared on Twitter right now. @achurches, an influential author, said New blog post: [...]
August 30th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Andrew, thanks for sharing your thoughts – You have obviously put some time in to this. What you have written does give a model for how the procurement in question could have gone under perfect/different conditions (e.g. more funding, such openness from all parties tendering, etc). Ideas such as this were discussed thoroughly with school reps during the process (Note that I only attended one all day meeting and was impressed by the range of thoughts being shared). However, the outcome had to be reached within ‘real/non-ideal’ conditions. Without knowing the numbers it is likely that what you are suggesting could have required a lot more money to make work at a time when resource was/is a binding constraint.
Looking forward I am still keen to develop a list of questions to ask about future/potential procurement deals, rather than ones already done (I say this both because it is more productive to face forward and because many, many schools are just pleased to have some of their software license paid and not have to worry about it). I guess a few might be:
- Are there significant ecomonies of scale to be had?
- Does selection have educational benefit or is it just nice to have?
- Is it new money (that would free up school funds for those who use the offering) or money coming out of the ops grant (taking away from all even if some do not value the offering)?
- Does a national/systemic view warrent the same/similar soultion for all?
- etc.
I think I will stary a discussion like this in the MLE Group, as we need such criteria for the identity and access management and for the eportfolio discussions. You and your readers can join us if they wish: http://groups.google.co.nz/group/mle-reference-group?hl=en&lnk=
Paul.
[Reply]