Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Schools etc. [was:RE: accu-general: Where to setup web site]

[ian]

On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 10:44, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > I don't think private companies are a good idea.
> > 
> > Why not? We are a private company and we are more able and less
> > expensive than a lot of public sector provision that actually insists
> > schools don#t use free software.
> 
> Yours is a private company working in the education sector. One of the
> ideas floated by the current Govt is to have the likes of McDonalds or
> even MS working in schools - that is, companies who don't know the first
> thing about how education works (much like the Government!)

i think its healthy to have private sector input provided that the
education professionals prevent things like overt marketing, product
brainwashing etc. When I was at Kingshurst CTC back in the late 80s we
had a range of industry people helping in the college from time to time.
Mostly they were terrified of the kids ;-) None of this is particularly
new.

> > >  The NHS (and other
> > > sectors like that, including education) should be run by those who know
> > > the sector and what is actually best for it. 
> > 
> > Which could be a private company like ours. I'll guarantee we know more
> > about the specialist schools programme than *any* LEA, and we wil
> > generally be less expensive.
> 
> There are always companies (like yours) who will be in that position,
> hense why I stated that having a company like Sony (as an example)
> working with education would not be a bad thing as long as it was
> established how far their influence went.

Agreed.

>  I'm sure you would agree that
> the best people to run a school would be a school and that they should
> be the ones who buy in services at a competative rate.

Oh yest, I would get rid of LEAs as they are now tomorrow. Cluster small
families of schools so  local is local but there is sufficient economy
of scale. The main snage with GM was small schools do not have the
economy of scale. Get bigger than a couple of secondary and say 10
primaries and you get impersonal bureaucracy.

> > > I know of plenty of high
> > > ups in education who would turn the clock back academically to 1988
> > > [first GCSE exams] and go from there to get rid of the mismanagement.
> > 
> > Well I have been involved with education since well before 1988 and
> > there was plenty of mismanagement before that date.
> 
> I'm well aware of that - this is why I say "academically"
> 
> > > The NHS was better run when the government let surgeries negotiate their
> > > own contracts with hospitals - it really did shake a lot of things up
> > > for the good. It was destroyed over night when they were told they could
> > > no longer manage themselves.
> > 
> > So you are in favour of grant maintained schools then?
> 
> If that gives them the freedom to do what they need to do to employ
> enough staff, have small enough groups and be able to negotiate their
> own prices for services, then yes.

Not easy with small schools where one person represents 10% of the
entire school budget and they need replacing and the only option is
someone say older and higher up the pay scale and therefore
unaffordable. Possible though with larger clusters.

> > > It may be that getting the likes of Sony to help in the management and
> > > promotion would be a good thing, but their remit would have to come
> > > second place to what is actually required - a decent basis for our
> > > children (or if you're one of our younger members, for you continued
> > > education) to learn in.
> > 
> > Why Sony? What the f do they know about education? Use someone who knows
> > something and has some experience at grass roots level but also has
> > business experience. These people exist, Yo don't have to rush off to an
> > irrelevant brand name for credibility. Next you will be saying get MS to
> > do it ;-)
> 
> I used Sony for two reasons. First is that in education, Sony is willing
> to give away hardware for teaching purposes for nothing

Hm, business that give things away do it for a reason. If MS gave
Schools Windows (they have in some cases) would you be as keen?

>  and secondly as
> they are probably the best company for marketting in the world. It was
> once said that if the next product Sony made was a cardboard box with a
> hole in the bottom, that a month after the launch, everyone would be
> using them!

Probably many would also say that of MS. Sony are are monopolistic
company too you know.

> > Really? How do you know it isn't simply poor management? Other primaries
> > manage so it must be possible. Answer is you might be right, but yet
> > agiab you could be entirely misguided.
> 
> Yes, I could be. However, it helps when the sister is also a governor
> and so gets to see the budget details...

Well I doubt that is the entire story either. Education management is as
much about relationships between people as it is about budgets.

> > > Prior to the current funding structure,
> > > the school had all it needed and could afford nice things, it was self
> > > governing and had funds. 
> > 
> > GM or just LMS?
> 
> Not sure. IIRC though it was GM. 

With GM the central admin budgets were transferred to the school. In a
primary it would probably be a lot less than 10% of the budget and some
of it would need to be used for services previously provided by the LEA.
Schools still have most of their budgets delegated under LMS but some is
held back for central admin - though that varies from LEA to LEA.

The main advantage of GM is to give the school corporate ownership and a
degree of independence. The psychological benefit of this if managed
properly was far more important than the funding issues, although since
some grants were only available to GM schools some would think that they
had a lot more funds, but that was not really down to delegating
marginal costs from the LEA.
> 
> > > > I believe it's already true that drug companies are unlikely to develop
> > > > treatments for conditions for which the market is small.
> > > 
> > > No. They are unlikely to develop treatments where there is little or no
> > > profit.
> > 
> > Or more like;y that they forecast a loss. I mean are you prepared to
> > lose to subsidise this because that's what you are asking them to do.
> 
> Having worked for a large pharmaceuticals company at one stage (Ely
> Lilly), the way it works is that if there is little or no profit, they
> don't do it. Remember, from first inception to market the average drug
> takes between 8 and 10 years and then another 6 years to break even
> (some take more, some less)

So its risk management. The difference between making 2% profit and 2%
loss is a very thin line. I know running our business it is virtually
impossible to plan to break even. You have to plan to be profitable so
if things don't quite work out you can break even and pay everyone. If
things go the other way suddenly you have more money than you thought
but then can we be sure the same thing will happen next year?

> > >  In a lot of cases, technologies (and drugs) for small markets
> > > usually yield big advantages. Look at ARM and RISC OS. ARM processors
> > > were originally built for RISC OS machines in a relatively small market.
> > > ARM is now one of the biggest chip designers around. RISC OS is used in
> > > set top boxes as well as anything else which requires NC like
> > > facilities.
> > 
> > Hm, ARM reasonable argument but I doubt the subsidise loss making
> > licenses. RISC OS? Not at all convinced its any sort of player anymore.
> 
> You would be suprised. ARM chips appear everywhere

ARM yes. 

>  and RISC OS in quite
> a few others...

Marginal apps in Pace set top boxes? I think free software is likely to
take over this especially as hardware capacity increases.

> > > > If not private companies, and not the govt. then who?
> > > 
> > > Those who actually work for the organisations. Many NHS managers would
> > > love to go back to the way it was before local bargaining came in (last
> > > election some time). Many schools would love to go back to self
> > > governing trusts again.
> > 
> > Many schools would like to go back to GM Status but many others would
> > shudder at the thought of taking away their security blanket.
> 
> That's a problem. If schools want to be able to do the best for their
> students, the blanket has to go.

If its your child in a school that is under-confident and you take away
the security and so in the short term it descends into serious
weaknesses/special measures would you still do it? Snag is a dependency
culture and that needs tackling first in some schools.Some schools are
fine to go GM and should be allowed to - best to let them go and let the
LEA etc concentrate on getting those who are dependent on them off that
dependency. Like IT support, weaning the customer of dependency is not
in the interest of the supplier so its difficult to make it happen - but
not impossible. 


-- 
ian <address@hidden>