Category: IT

Tech vendors should do more?

There is a lot of discussion in relation to how tech vendors and particularly big tech vendors need to do better, whether this is in relation to data protection, online safety, addressing fake news and many other considerations.    A recent presentation by Laura Knight at FutureShots24 where she spoke of the finite and infinite games, and of Simon Sinek’s book, “The infinite game”, got me thinking about this again.

Tech vendors need to sort it

Firstly it is important to acknowledge the benefits of technology;   The tools we have and use are there as they are useful and the tech companies that continue to operate are there as we as users choose to use their solutions, but there are also challenges and drawbacks associated with most technologies.    It is pretty clear that tech vendors need to do more to address the various challenges and risks which come about as a result of their products.    They provide a tool, whether it be a productivity suite, a social media application or a generative AI tool, among many others, with many people using these tools appropriately and for good, however, there are also then those who use these tools for ill, for criminal, unethical and immoral purposes.    Now I have blogged on this before, how tools are neither good or bad, but it is their use which is good or bad, however, the challenge is that through technology the resulting impact is magnified.   I have talked of a hammer as a tool, and how it could be used for assault, but unlike a hammer, a maliciously used social media tool can impact hundreds or thousands of people at once; the potential impact of the tools is much broader.   So, from this, it seems clear that tech vendors need to consider this negative impact and seek to mitigate the risk in the design of their platforms and through their processes.

The key here is that we are not really looking at these tools, but at their impact on wider society.   Society will continue, for good or for ill long into the future.   It is an infinite game.    Long after I am worm food, society will continue.   Likely long after many of these tech platforms have been and gone (think MySpace, Friends Reunited and the likes) society will continue.

And so, we look to rules and to laws to provide us with the frameworks and protections, where these rules and laws will exist long into the future, although they may evolve and be adjusted over time.    Sadly, though these laws and rules are designed for the long infinite game and therefore are slow to change, relying on established processes and methods not designed for the quick changing technological world we find ourselves in.  

With laws unable to keep up we find ourselves complaining that the tech vendors need to do more, and this is likely the case but the tech vendors know their time is limited as they may be dispatched to the bin should the next viral app come along, so they don’t want to expedite this through making a safer but less usable or less enjoyable or less attractive or addictive platform.   We have a problem!

But the tech companies are important

The tech companies are driven by profit as they are after all money-making companies with shareholders to answer to.   That said, many of the big tech companies do try to establish the moral and ethical principles by which they operate.    It is their drive for money which leads them to “move fast and break things”, to innovate and disrupt as they seek to find the next big thing and the corresponding profits which come with it.   And we need this innovation.   If we left innovation to governments, their processes, laws and rules would make the process of innovation so much slower than it is while it is in the hands of tech companies.  I suspect we would be still using 5 ¼” floppy discs at this point! 

The tech companies play the finite game, knowing that in this game there will be winners and losers so moving fast, disrupting and innovating is the only way to avoid being confined to the technology bin of history; think the polaroid camera, the mini-disc, and the platforms I mentioned earlier.    So, if the choice is spending longer to create a safer platform, but possibly being 2nd to the market with a product, or getting it out quickly and being 1st but then having to try and address issues later on, closing the gate after the horse has bolted, it seems pretty clear which the tech companies will choose.    Being 1st means survival while being 2nd might spell doom.

Solution?

I am not really sure that there is a solution here, or at least that there isn’t a perfect or near perfect solution.    Things will go wrong, and when they go wrong we will be able to highlight what could have or should have been done by tech vendors, governments or individuals to prevent the outcome.  But we have to remember we are dealing with technology tools operating at scale, and just take TikTok for example and its approx. 1 billion monthly users.    We haven’t yet banned cars but car accidents continue to happen!

Tech companies will continue to focus on the finite game and on maximising profit for their shareholders and on remaining viable, while politicians will also play the finite game, focussing on policies and proclamations which are more likely to be psotively received and to keep them in power, or help them to power.    But the world and society is an infinite game where what we do now may impact how things are for future generations.

I think we need to be pragmatic and I also think its about partnership and working together.  If governments, tech vendors and user groups can work together, discuss the benefits, the concerns and the issues, maybe we can make some progress.   Maybe we can find the best “reasonable” options and the “good enough”.     And I note, I feel some of this is already happening within some companies.     I suppose my one conclusion is simply that it isn’t for tech vendors to do more, it is for us all to do more, tech vendors, governments, schools, parents and adults more broadly, communities, and more.    And if we can do it, discuss and explore, find and test solutions together then maybe we can start to address some of the challenges.

Digital (or not) headaches

I have followed the work of Ian Phillips for quite a while in particular his discussion of digital headaches.  There are definitely a number of things in relation to the use of digital technologies in schools where these result in headaches however there are also non-digital headaches which the use of digital can help towards addressing, plus some other headaches which are much larger and more strategic that they impact on education in general.    Here I would like to share a few thoughts on the later of these.

The ”do more” narrative

I have been working in schools for over 25years now, starting my teacher training all the way back in 1994.    Over the period I have seen the role change significantly in terms of the things teachers are expected to do beyond their classroom teaching.   The change has been gradual over time, so gradual that it is easy to have missed or to underestimate, however the change has been there and is significant in my opinion.     Technology has helped in some ways through allowing easy sharing of information, collaboration and record keeping although this doesn’t take away from the fact that there are still the same numbers of hours in the day, but greater expectations on what “needs” to be done during this time.   So, is the digital headache of too many systems, or less than ideal user interfaces really the problem, or is the problem that we need all of these systems and different interfaces for all of the different things we are expected to do and which are now considered important?   Do we need to reset and try and work out what it is that really matters most in schools?

Measuring impact

During my time in education I have felt a definite increase on the focus on measuring impact.  Now I will acknowledge the need for accountability and for measuring impact to maximise the quality of the educational experience, but I wonder if we may have gone to far.    And where we go too far, I feel that sometimes fall into the trap of considering what we measure as being what matters rather than focussing on measuring what actually matters.   As such we can suddenly get drawn into focussing on the things OFSETD or ISI focus on, on looking at league tables and standardised test results and similar and considering these above all other things.    And technology with all its data and data analysis potential can help us here, but the issue of high stakes measurements remains.   Is the digital headache effectively measuring and analysing all of our data, or is it simply that we have been drawn down the rabbit hole of frequently weighing a pig hoping it will fatten, while under increasing stress and pressure to ensure we can evidence a fatter pig?      Do we therefore need to consider data and accountability but also the human and social aspects of education, and find a more appropriate balance?

Funding

Working in technology in schools, funding is an issue, but it is also an issue across many other areas including non-tech resources, salaries, buildings, etc.   Now I want to be careful here as the argument for more funding can be a little reductive, suggesting with more funding all the issues could be solved.   I don’t believe this is the case as schools would still need to decide what they use their funding on, how they manage the short term and the longer term, their vision and priorities, all of which would impact on their use of funding and the impact of said funding.   From a digital point of view there is a direct link to funding in that good technology use in classrooms and the wider school relies on the basic infrastructure, device, software, support and training being in place and this requires investment, not just in the immediate term, but ongoing to upgrade, replace and maintain.  Is funding however a digital headache?    It is definitely a headache which impacts on the digital side of things in schools, however I feel it is a far broader problem so maybe not a digital headache after all.

The efficiency narrative

Linked to some of what I have written above is the efficiency narrative that we need to do things more efficiently.   If more efficient we will be able to do more, or it will cost less to do as we will complete tasks quicker or more thoroughly.   But is this what schools are really about, doing things quicker or doing more things?    If we can get students to complete their A-Levels at the end of year 11 would this be an improvement, and if so at what cost?    A lot of the narrative around AI solutions in schools has been around AI as a digital assistant to help teachers do more or do things quicker.   From a digital headaches point of view it might be seen that technology introduces some inefficiencies, for example in individuals dealing with emails, or processing data, etc, but is the headache a digital one or just the use of digital solutions to try and solve a bigger problem?   Do we really want efficient schools which churn out students as a product with ever increasing uniformity and speed, or do we want a messier education system which takes time to nurture individual students and allow them to flourish?    

Conclusion

Technology is a tool which can, in some cases, magnify or reflect the issues of those using it.    It may be that we then perceive digital headaches in technology however I wonder that some of the digital headaches may be representative of bigger societal or education sector challenges.   Do we therefore need to get to the root of the problem, get past the technology layer, and look to the wider issue at hand?   

Software as a service: Risks

There are many benefits of software as a service.   You don’t have the overheads or the server infrastructure, the software development and maintenance costs and a number of other costs, plus you benefit from the vendors ongoing efforts to improve their platform and add new usable functionality.  So, what possible downsides could there be?

Data Protection

Where using software as a service, the data is often still your school data with the school as the data controller.   As such the responsibility for data protection remains with the school but this isnt matched by the control the school can bring to bear.   Even after doing due diligence and reviewing terms and conditions, privacy, and data protection policies, etc, you are still reliant on the vendor doing what they say they are doing, and this isnt always the case.   And the first time you are likely to know about an issue is when something goes wrong and it is too late, such as following a data breach or following identification of data being inappropriately shared.

Which functionality

Another potential issue with software as a service is that you are reliant on the vendors direction of travel in relation to their solution aligning with school needs.    It wouldn’t be the first time that a vendor, including some large vendors who will remain nameless in this post, have decided that functionality they have provided or a solution they provide is no longer on their roadmap, and therefore will be removed.   This is ok if your school doesn’t use that functionality or solution but if you do you suddenly find yourself needing to find an alternative solution when users may be quite happy with what they have.  

When it goes down

Linked back to data protection and control, another area in relation to software as a service where a school lacks control is when things go wrong and the service either ceases to function or functions poorly or improperly.   At this stage a schools only recourse is to raise the issue with the vendor and await a response.  Sometimes this response will be quick and detailed however more than not it will be slow to arrive and lacking any detail.   Now I get some of this in terms of dealing with software or hardware issues and needing time to investigate and being unable to provide a definitive timeline, etc, however communications matters and a quick status page update or a holding email never goes amiss.   Sadly, more than not I have found myself, particularly with EdTech vendors, to be met with a wall of silence.

Exit strategies

And one big issue in my view, is often the lack of or near impossibility in some cases of an exit strategy.    Ideally a company may change its functionality significantly, might cease to be a going concern or might suffer a significant issue or data breach, all requiring the school to exit and find another vendor.  The challenge however is that some solutions such as the Management Information System or the Productivity Suite for example, are so engrained and part of the day-to-day operation of a school as to be very difficult to exit from.    The change costs are massive and the new solution, being new, is a partially unknown quantity, and hence we stay where we are, until we can’t.

Conclusion

Software as a Service is the life blood of technology in schools as schools simply cannot support and manage on-site hosting and/or in-house solutions development.    It offers so many benefits that enhance the learning experiences for students plus the efficiency of staff yet as with all things there is a balance.   Very seldom is anything positive without any downsides.

An AI divide?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the big talking point at the moment with all its many potential benefits, along with some risks and challenges.   One of the challenges however that doesn’t seem to have been discussed as often is that of digital divides, where AI might represent yet another divide been the haves and have nots and the can and can nots.

Digital Divides

The term digital divide refers to gaps between people or communities who have access to and use of digital technologies such as computers, smartphones, and the internet, and those who do not. This gap can be attributed to a variety of factors, including socioeconomic status, geographic location, age, race, and education level.

Before considering AI as an additional divide, there were several different types of digital divides that exist. Some examples include:

Access divide: This refers to differences in physical access to digital technologies, such as lack of broadband internet access in certain areas, lack of availability of computers or smartphones, or lack of access to digital skills training.

Usage divide: This refers to differences in how people use digital technologies, such as differences in the types of devices people use, how often they use them, and what they use them for.

Skills divide: This refers to differences in digital literacy and skills, such as the ability to use digital technologies effectively and safely, the ability to access and evaluate online information, and the ability to create and share digital content.

Content divide: This refers to differences in the availability and quality of digital content, such as differences in access to online educational resources, news and information, and cultural and entertainment content.

Economic divide: This refers to differences in the economic benefits and opportunities that digital technologies can provide, such as differences in access to online job opportunities, e-commerce, and digital financial services.

The AI Divide

Artificial Intelligence represents a potential additional divide although the issues may sit under the above divides.   Access to Artificial Intelligence solutions, the relevant skills and understanding to make the appropriate use of AI and the resources to make use of AI.     Personally, I present AI as a new additional divide rather than one contained in the above due to what I see as the wide ranging potential impact which AI can have on the world as it is now.   In my area, that of education, I feel this is particularly relevant.  Aside from student access to technology, skills, etc, there are some schools who will seek to explore use of AI solutions whereas in other cases there may be a drive to block, filter or control access.

Considering the divide that AI may create I can see issues for those who do not have access or do not have the skills to use AI.   Those who do may become more efficient through the use of AI to carry out more mundane tasks or to provide the basic starting point for task rather than users having to start from scratch.   The likes of the 30mins challenge which shows how much more might be possible through the use of AI tools illustrates this nicely.   From a creativity point of view, AI might as Dan Fitzpatrick has said “democratise creativity” meaning those who can and do use AI may have greater potential for creative outputs than those who do not or can not use AI.   And that is but two areas where AI use and understanding may create a divide, and I suspect there are many others.

Conclusion

We wish there to be equitable treatment for all however the ongoing discussion of digital divides highlights, although progress may be being made, that we aren’t there yet.   The increasing discussion and use of Artificial Intelligence adds yet another factor which can create a digital divide and therefore negatively impact on equity.   We need to be conscious of this in the same way as we are conscious of the other challenges of AI including bias, attribution, accuracy, etc.

School IT Tendering

The recent court case in which a school management information system (MIS) vendor took a multi-academy trust (MAT) to court is of concern to schools.   It highlights the potential risk of vendors taking schools, colleges or multi-academy trusts to court where decisions don’t go their way.   In these cases, for me the educational institutional organisation will always suffer a loss, independent of any court decision as their plans have to be put on hold while any court proceedings are undertaken.

Now first, and to be very clear, I don’t have all of the details as to the court case in question so what follows are some general thoughts and my personal opinion on the information I have read in relation to this case, and also on the wider risks and implications.

Tendering processes have to be clear and fair

I think this is one of the key issues here, that any tendering process must be fair to the parties involved and that the methodology should be clear.   Time spent on ensuring this can hopefully prevent time lost in court cases.    It therefore is important to consider the factors that you will decide will influence your decision making.   Some of these are obvious, such as cost, service level agreements, the vendors reputation and size, while others are maybe less obvious.

Total cost of ownership

Examining the total cost of ownership is critical, as the cost of a solution, whether it is a software solution, hardware solution or mixture of the two, is more than just the upfront and annual costs.   There are the costs incurred through use of staff time during the setup phase and then the ongoing maintenance of the solution.   There is the cost of training staff to use the new solution, with this often being a largely hidden or at least difficult to predict cost.    These factors which relate to change management need to be carefully considered and weighed up.

Change management

This is where, in my personal opinion, the issues examined during the school management court case appear to have gone a little wrong.     In this case one of the vendors already had a separate contract for some of the schools within the MAT.   The tending process however did not include these schools so was clearly separate to this contract.   The courts assertion seems to be that the consideration of discounts in relation to this unfairly influenced the decision to go with this vendor, meaning the competing vendor was at a disadvantage from the outset.

A pragmatic view

As a Multi-Academy Trust you want consistency in your MIS due to economy of scale and ease of support when working on a single solution rather than differing solutions across schools.   This put one vendor at a disadvantage from the start, in tendering for a new contract limited to a subset of all schools.   I wonder if the school could have approached the existing vendor regarding exit from their contract and put out a tender for all the MATs schools?    I suspect the existing vendor may have been reluctant here however it seems, in hindsight, to have been one possible solution.

We also need to acknowledge the real-world disadvantage; As the MAT is already using one vendor they already have experience of that vendor, including trained and experienced staff in using it, experience migrating to it or setting it up, etc.   In any abstract examination of two equal solutions, where we have a positive experience of one of the solutions, plus have people already trained and skilled such that they could support others as a migration is undertaken, it seems clear to me that we would tend towards this solution, thereby disadvantaging the other.    It’s the availability bias, its confirmation bias, and its risk aversion and sticking with what we know versus what we don’t.    I note that if the current solution was poor and ill fitting in the schools currently using it, this would likely have disadvantaged them in any tendering process.   The fact it didn’t suggests to me that the solution in its practical, everyday use, rather than in a sales demo, has been viewed at least neutral if not positively.   I also note, assuming the two solutions did compare equally when disregarding the fact the MAT already had practical experience and skilled staff working with one of the solutions, would we then expect the MAT to simply flip a coin to pick a solution and in keeping the selection process fair?

Conclusion

For me this whole incident is of concern.  We are in a time of limited budgets plus time pressures yet this court case took up both and may signal similar cases occurring with other vendors and schools.   I note that the MAT is planning to appeal the decision so this may help in providing some clarity but only time will tell.   In the meantime, it highlights the need for care in tendering processes especially where they relate to bigger sums, such as where large MATs may be involved.    My learning experience from this incident seems to be that time spent in planning the process and ensuring transparency at the beginning may prevent time loss further down the line.    Sadly, it has taken this incident to make this more apparent.

The only final thought I have to share is that I hope it all gets resolved as soon as possible as until it does all the schools in the MAT, and all the many students they support are simply sat waiting to find out what will happen next.  This period of watching and waiting can’t be a good thing.

References:

United Learning loses High Court battle over £2m MIS deal (schoolsweek.co.uk)

Its only Artificial Intelligence!

Meta released a chatbot for use in the US where its responses are based on internet based data.   It wasn’t long before the chatbot was being less than positive about Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg.   Overall, a bit of a novelty but it might also give us a little bit of insight into the Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning algorithms which underpin an increasing number of the services we use online.

It is highly unlikely that Meta specifically programmed their chat bot to suggest that the CEO did “a terrible job in testifying before congress” however this is the feedback it provided upon being asked “what did you think of mark Zuckerberg”.    This response is likely the result of the chatbot analysing data sources on the internet and identifying this response as most likely to be true, or at least true in the perceptions of those sharing their thoughts online.   So here we see a couple of problems:

  1. As users and even developers, we will not necessarily be able to identify how the response was arrived at.   It’s a black box system;  We can see the inputs and the outputs but not the process.    Considering this should make us a little bit nervous as, especially for important decisions, it would be nice to understand how the answer an algorithm provides was arrived at.   Imagine an AI being used in assessing mortgage applications;  How would you feel if no-one can example why your application was refused?    From a user point of view, as a black box system, there is also the danger that the service provider does have control over the algorithm and therefore can directly influence and control feedback to suit their own needs.  In this case the black box system provides a smoke screen for potentially unethical practices.
  2. The chatbot repeats what it sees to be true or the commonly held belief, based on the data sources it accesses.  Bias could easily be introduced here through the internet sources which the chatbot is provided access to or through the queries it might use in identifying pertinent information.   We should be naturally questioning of a solution which may be inherently biased.   One example of this is the issues surrounding facial recognition where the AI was trained largely on white rather than coloured faces, due to the predominant skin colour among those developing the AI solution.  As such we ended up with AIs which did a poorer job of facial recognition when presented with faces with non-white skin colour.
  3. Again, relating to the repetition of commonly held belief, the chatbot may simply act as an echo chamber for commonly held beliefs, disregarding minority views.    And if a number of chatbots were to be used together they might be able to powerfully shape the truth on social media channels through repeatedly posting.

Some of the above is of concern but then I start to think about the alternative and a human rather than AI based system.    Humans are not transparent in their thinking processes although they might seek to explain how they arrived at a solution, we rely on sub-concious influences and decision making processes to which we have no access.    Humans equally like an AI based system may be biased or may seek to service their own needs or the needs of their employer.    And humans also tend towards the likeminded, which therefore creates the echo chambers mentioned above.    So maybe AI is no more problematic than a human based solution.   

Is the challenge therefore that AI is technology rather than a human being like us?   Is it maybe that this difference may influence our feeling of unease or unhappiness with the risks mentioned above, and that we simply accept similar issues in human based processed because, after all, we are “only human”?

IT Service: To help or to develop self-sufficient users?

One of the key roles of IT services or IT support teams is to resolve issues, to fix things.  But if this is the sum of expectations it represents a short-sighted view, as all you may get is repeated calls related to the same issue.   As such IT services teams also need to try and develop users such that they are more able to resolve their own issues, only needing to seek IT services help for specific technical issues.    So how do we navigate between these two options?

Statistics: Calls logged, resolved, time taken

We often need to identify methods by which we measure our efforts.   In schools, for our students, this is the exam system and terminal exams at the end of the year.   For IT teams one easy measure is to look at the number of issues reported, issues resolved and also the time elapsed.    These are easy pieces of information to gather using a help desk software solution.    The danger here is that what is easy to measure becomes what matters rather than us choosing to measure what matters.   As such the repeated call by the member of staff related to the same issue can be viewed positively as it will be simple to resolve and close the call quickly therefore reflecting positively on the statistics.   Is this use of IT staff time, repeatedly resolving the same issue for the same person, achieving value?

Learner Helplessness

Another issue with repeatedly and quickly fixing issues for staff is learned helplessness.    Although staff will be happy to quickly and easily have their issues resolved it equally doesn’t encourage them to be self-sufficient.   It in fact encourages them to call IT in future for all problems as this is likely to be easier and less effort than trying to find a solution for themselves.    When working with Primary School teachers, I remember some teachers approaching this issue with their students, by using “C3B4ME”.   What this basically means is that students shouldn’t approach the teacher for help unless they have tried 3 other sources such as books, their fellow students, the internet, relatives, etc first.    I have actually had this poster placed on our IT Services noticeboard at the entrance to our offices as I think it is as valid for staff and for senior school students as it is for primary school students.

Training

So, from the above it might seem clear that we need to seek to train staff to be self-sufficient.  If it was that simple we would all be doing it.   Sadly, the challenge here is often time and intrinsic motivation.   On the time front, staff in schools are already busy and there is a dearth of free time available to conduct training, therefore requiring something else to give, to free up time.  Also, where staff members approach IT teams with an issue they largely need this issue resolved immediately as it might be impacting the current class or a class due to be taken later in the day.   Linked to this, the motivation is about removing the issue to the teaching or admin task to be progressed;  There is little motivation at the point of contact with IT teams towards learning a bit more about IT or about developing additional technology skills. 

Maybe a future

I suspect part of the future may include the greater use of AI and chatbots.    More and more schools force staff to log their issues via an online reporting tool rather than supporting direct phone calls.  This makes sense due to the time taken for a phone call and the resultant resource usage where direct phone calls are supported.    Augmenting this with AI that can easily and directly inform users as to fixes for common issues or can direct them to user guides to assist, freeing up IT staff time to focus on those issues which aren’t as easy to fix.   This obviously relies on the accuracy of the AI to accurately interpret and categorise the user input.    A challenge that I believe will occur here is simply the lack of detail which sometimes is entered within support calls from users.   Am not sure we can do much about this, however a chat bot might simply deal with this by stating the need for further information.

Conclusion

If IT teams focus on fixing issues, staff skills will likely never improve and we will simply repeat the same guides and instructions as solutions to the same problems.  This doesn’t feel like a productive use of time.   Alternatively, we could try a focus fully on training with each call, however this is likely to result in user frustration and take too much time.    As with so many things, the issue likely lies between the two.  We should seek to fix issues as efficiently as possible while also seeking to inform and to educate.   We should also use the data we gather to identify the common issues and again seek ways to share and train users to resolve these issues for themselves.

I feel it is the role of IT Services teams both to help resolve issues but also to develop user self-sufficiency such that they can increasingly solve their own problems; a difficult balance to achieve.

The asymmetry of relations between schools and the providers of solutions they use.

During last year a third-party software solution vendor decided to change its pricing model, which in turn resulted in a significant cost increase to the school.   It is only now however that I have had time to write and share my thoughts on this.   Now, I can understand their reasoning for the increase, given their model made them significantly cheaper than the competition when we originally looked to source a solution, and therefore despite providing a similar service, they would have had lower income.   That said, it still felt unfair.

So, what are the factors here?

Communication

In this case the communication wasn’t great, as it wasn’t until our renewal that they communicated the cost increase with us, where clearly, they must have planned the change including modelling its impact on both the company and its users.    I would have hoped that they would have clearly communicated their plan for a price increase in advance, outlining to customers the reasoning for the change and how the new funds would be invested and used to the betterment of the product and therefore its loyal customers.   A little bit better communication, and more information may have made me at least a little more understanding as to the change.   Sadly, in this case all we got was a quote with a price significantly higher than the cost from the previous year.

Training and sunk costs

Following this unfair treatment, it might seem logical to simply change vendors, especially now where this vendor is now comparable in terms of price with other solutions.   The challenge here is that we can’t purely look at the bit of software and its cost, we need to consider the number of users, type of users, training and support, the complexity of the system, etc, if we are truly to identify its impact or the impact of trying to change systems.   This is where it gets difficult as it will always be easier to stay with the solution you have, than to change to a new solution, especially where the solution you have has been in use for several years.    You have already paid the cost of setting the solution up, adjusting processes and training users.   With any change in solution these costs will still need to be paid.   At this point you need a robust motivation to change, where in my case, the minor feeling of unfairness is unlikely to be enough.

So, what to do?

I decided that as the total cost of moving to a new solution was higher and represented more uncertainty, despite the feeling being unfairly treated, I decided to stay with the vendor in question.   I did however make sure our unhappiness as to this incident was made clear.   Maybe there will be some potential for negotiation on cost following this however at the time of writing this is unknown.   I know this decision seems imperfect, but we live in an imperfect world.

Wider implications

The above incident however highlights the wider implication where we invest in solutions for use in our schools whether they be learning platforms, productivity suites, management information systems or other solutions.   As we invest, and use and eventually embed each system, we need to consider what our exit strategy might be.    Although we hope each third party may have us, the customer, in mind it is likely their key focus is on their continued commercial operation and on growth where possible.   As such the customer isnt us as an individual school or MAT, but schools, the collective group of schools they currently or in future may wish to sell to.

We are investing in their platform to provide something to our schools which we can’t provide for ourselves.    They however are less invested in us as we are but one school in a sea of schools to which they sell their product.   The relationship is decidedly asymmetric.

Conclusion

I wish I had a solution for this issue but sadly I do not.   The relationship between a school and the third-party solutions it uses isnt balanced and as such even if the vendors direction is currently aligned with yours, it is unlikely to remain so.

The only recommendation I can therefore offer is to be aware of the asymmetry of the relationship and have an eye on possible alternatives should the push become significant enough to offset any training or other costs.    Also, where unhappy, be sure to make vendors aware as it is likely you won’t be the only person, and if a vendors collective user base all complain the vendor may be forced to reconsider any proposed changes.

The big vendors we are all using, such as Google and Microsoft, may represent the above issue taken to an even large scale.  If their solutions ceased to align with school needs, how easy would it be to move solution, where all your data, your training, etc is so heavily invested in these solutions continuing to remain in alignment with individual school needs.   This may be an even more significant risk, however hopefully one which we will never need to realise.   As such it may therefore be ok to have at least considered the risk.

Technology and efficiency

Technology can make things easier or more efficient however as with most things, there is usually an opposing drawback or disadvantage seeking to balance things out.    

Take for example the recent plans by some Scottish schools to introduce the use of biometrics, and in particular facial recognition, to try and speed up its lunch queues (You can read more about the plan here).   Using facial recognition means that the student can be recognised as they arrive at the till allowing lunch staff to quickly scan foods items and apply to their lunch account, where the lunch account is topped up with credit by parents via an online portal.   This will likely save a few seconds in lunch staff identifying the student on their system in order to apply the costs.   A few seconds doesn’t sound like much but if you consider 600 students going to lunch each day, even a single second grows to 10mins saved per lunch period or 50mins per week or even over 3hrs per month.   The potential benefit is pretty clear, but is this enough?

Cost

The first, and likely most obvious drawback in any technology implementation is cost.  The cost of hardware, the cost of software but also the cost of planning, implementation, training and support.   In almost every technology solution there will be an additional cost to be considered and it will be necessary to examine whether this cost is worth the proposed gain of the technology solution.    And we need to be careful to ensure we look beyond the initial financial costs and consider the more long-term support, maintenance and replacement cost, the total cost of ownership.   In the case of facial recognition in school canteens, it might be easy to compare this cost against the improvements in service or even a notional cost saving in terms of time saving.

Cyber Security

The other factor which is almost always guaranteed to act in balance is that of cyber security.    Adding addition systems or solutions will likely increase the schools cyber attack surface and risk, even where appropriate risk mitigation strategies have been put into place.   It will also add complexity which again increases risk.   As such, cyber security needs to be considered in establishing whether the proposed gains are sufficient to outweigh any risks or costs.

Data Protection

Data Protection, which is linked to cyber security, is yet another factor that needs to be considered.   It is likely more data or different types of data might be stored as the result of the proposed technology change.  We need to be sure that we have processes in place for managing this, and that we continue to comply with UK GDPR or other data protection legislation.   In the case of facial recognition this is particularly important and one of the stumbling blocks impacting on the Scottish schools proposal.    We need to ensure that data gathering is proportional and reasonable to the purpose for which it is being gathered.    In the case of gathering facial recognition data of children, below the age of 18, it is questionable whether this data gathering exercise, which means gathering sensitive biometric data, plus relates to children, is proportional when the aim is to reduce queuing and waiting times at lunch.    Simply put, technology can bring about the improvement in waiting times, however in the form of facial recognition technology, it is questionable as to whether it should.

Conclusion

I often bleat on about balance.   Seldom do we make gains through technology use without there being some sort of trade off, cost or other balancing factor.    Financial cost is the most obvious of the costs however we equally need to consider the longer-term costs of support and maintenance.   Additionally, the cyber security and data protection related risks also need to be considered in detail before proceeding.   Just because technology CAN be used isnt enough;  we also need to ask whether it is right to use it, and whether it SHOULD be used.

What is the role of the IT Network Lead to enhance Teaching and Learning?

The below post is based on my recent presentation at the EdTech Summit in Birmingham, my first face to face conference in over 1 ½ years where I was asked to present on my role, which is effectively leading IT Services and how it fits into supporting and encouraging the use of technology in teaching and learning.

I think it is important to tackle this question by breaking it down a little;   The first thing I believe that is worth looking at is who should lead on the use of tech in relation to teaching and learning.    For me the answer to this is simply that it is unlikely that any single person will possess all the relevant skills and experience in relation to school strategy, technology, pedagogy, curriculum content, classroom management and a variety of other factors.    Leading technology in a school requires a team of people working together with the network lead, director of IT or whatever title is in your school, being one of these people.    So that maybe answer the overall question, that the IT network leads role is to work in partnership and collaboration with other tech leaders in a school to support, empower and encourage others in the use of technology within teaching and learning.

And what does effective use of tech in teaching and learning look like?    This is a really important question.   It is sometimes easy to consider tech use to be high impact, flashy, high tech, etc, but the reality of it is that good tech use should largely be transparent to the teacher and learners, being simply the natural way they do things.   So, it is important to acknowledge this and therefore accept that good technology use may be subtle and nuanced much in the same way as good teaching is, rather than something obvious that jumps out and hits you in the face.

And then there is the word “enhance”.    So, technology can bring more to the teaching and learning experience, making it better?    Am not sure how comfortable I feel with this and the possible implication than teaching without tech might be a lesser experience;  I believe great teaching can occur even without the use of tech.   Tech is simply a tool but a tool which brings with it a variety of options and a flexibility which may not have been as possible or easy to achieve without tech.    Borrowing from the SAMR model, tech could augment, an alternative word to enhance, modify or even allow the redefinition of learning.   The potential is beyond simply enhancement.   It is also worth acknowledging that we increasingly live in a technology enabled world, and therefore technology is likely to be the norm in the world beyond schools our current students will eventually be faced with.

In terms of the wider IT teams and their involvement, here I have a worry that IT teams are often the staff behind the curtain, invisible in their day-to-day efforts, until things go wrong.  This isn’t right in my view as IT teams work hard day in day out to make things work, to set things up, to manage and administrate and to ensure that technology simple appears to work.  The reality is that lots of work goes in on a day-to-day basis, even when things are working well and the technology has become almost transparent in its use in the classroom.   There needs to be greater acknowledgement of this and of IT staff’s role as partners in teaching and learning.    And this from someone who has been a teacher, a teacher and IT admin and an IT Director.

Conclusion

IT Network Lead, IT Manager, IT Director, or whatever you want to call them should be actively part of discussions regarding technology strategy.  They should be seen as partners in the process of teaching and learning using technology;   They may not necessarily bring the pedagogical knowledge or curriculum content knowledge, but they bring the technology knowledge.   And above all leading tech in a school is a team effort!