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