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.
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.
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
