Terms & Conditions of use & Informed consent

[Dave Lane]

Kia ora all,

It's come to my attention that nearly every student at every school in NZ that has adopted the Ministry of Education-funded Microsoft and Google school services is contravening the terms & conditions of use for those services.

As I explain in this blog post (which has been vetted by the School Trustees' Association legal advisors), apparently the standard approach adopted by schools throughout NZ when asking parents/guardians to enrol new students is to tick a box saying 'I approve the technology choices' of the school, on a paper form. That's certainly what we experienced for our children. I was told by several school board members at various schools in Ōtautahi that this is typical.

It seems to me that this approach breaches the basic principle of 'informed consent' on which the entire legal framework of 'terms and conditions of use' is based. This approach completely precludes the opportunity for those parents/guardians to *see* the actual terms for the various individual services (e.g. Google, Microsoft, SeeSaw, Adobe, etc.) that their children will be required to use at their schools.

Of course, we all know that this 'I Accept' process is farcical and absurd, because no one actually reads the Ts&Cs,  but we all play along. But they actually form a legal contract. I suspect there are many in this group who, in effect, click 'I Accept' on behalf of those many students when creating new accounts for them at the start of each year.

This fundamentally undermines the legal legitimacy of the use of that proprietary software, and opens the schools (and, more importantly, their boards) to significant liability. Microsoft & Google (among others) could legitimately withhold services from schools for breach of terms if they wanted to... or they could privately threaten to do so. We might never know.

Alternatively, do Microsoft and Google want their Ts&Cs to become meaningless and unenforceable? I suspect not. That process is their only legally binding contract with end users. Do school boards want their parents to rebel at this improper process which parents might quite rightly consider obfuscation/opaque process? 

Has the Ministry of Education ever provided legal advice to schools or boards regarding their interpretation of the Ts&Cs of all the software applications they actively procure and fund for schools' use? 

 

These are questions I think parents, schools, and their boards should all be asking.

Noho ora mai,

Dave

[Dave Lane]

Apologies - I neglected to post a link to the blog post I referred to in the previous email: https://davelane.nz/explainer-digitech-risks-school-boards

[Parker, Andy]

Hi all.

Not wanting to get into this debate around MS / Google vs Open Source (and similar), but I do agree somewhat with Dave that NZ schools have tended to adopt the typical Kiwi "she'll be right' attitude when selecting software systems for students to use (regardless of whether this be compulsory, or optional)

Systems where student PI is shared are long, a few coming to mind; Education Perfect, NZCER, Sporty (Sportsground), local health boards, Mathletics, etc

No criticism of these, but has the MoE provided good guidance to schools on assessing the privacy and security posture of these application? Have schools done their own PIA, and informed parents?

Can I suggest we pivot away from this discussion which seems to have become political and use the thread to raise the capabilities and awareness in our schools on issues of privacy and security.

Kind regards,

Andy 

Andy Parker Director of ILT

P +64 9 520 4159  D +64 9 520 8841 M +64 21478379 E andy....@stcuthberts.school.nz St Cuthbert’s College – 122 Market Road Epsom, Auckland 1051, New Zealand stcuthberts.school.nz

Please consider the environment before printing this email

This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message or contacting help...@stcuthberts.school.nz, and deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored.

---

From: techies-f...@googlegroups.com <techies-f...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Dave Lane <dangerd...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 29 January 2025 9:54 am
To: Techies for schools <techies-f...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [techies-for-schools] Terms & Conditions of use & Informed consent

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Techies for schools" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to techies-for-sch...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/9fa3a696-8205-431d-a369-2149884049abn%40googlegroups.com.

[Dave Lane]

Thanks for your response and support, Andy... but I wonder about this squeamishness at addressing the fundamentally broken processes by which we've found ourselves in our current situation. 

I wonder how many folks here are aware of this report from NZ's Privacy Foundation: https://privacyfoundation.nz/wp-content/uploads/Privacy-in-online-learning_teaching-Preliminary-issues-paper.pdf

Or revelations of a highly questionable relationship between the Ministry and Microsoft: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/492898/documents-expose-microsoft-s-relationship-with-nz-education-and-hopes-for-ai-in-schools -

I have at least dozen other similar reports of NZ-based revelations (and many more overseas reports of improper data use by Microsoft, Google, and the rest of BigTech). When do we get a straight answer from the Ministry? When do they take responsibility for imposing these tools on schools, boards, and our educators & tamariki without proper process?

I'm also thinking about things like the Ministry's inability to define and require vendor compliance with an open interchange standard for student data transfer between disparate *Ministry-certified* student management systems.  That has been an obvious failure to any IT person in education for decades.

Technology is always political. We need to pull our heads out of the sand and start talking about it. Otherwise we'll continue to waste time, money, and our children's digital educations (never mind privacy exploitation and digital colonisation by these US platforms).

Noho ora  mai,

Dave

[Andrew Hood]

Andy,

Have a look at Safer Technologies for Schools - ST4S. This was to help schools try an navigate privacy concerns around the use of technology without having to have each school ask the same questions to vendors.

Thanks,

Andrew

On Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at 1:36:04 PM UTC+13 an...@stcuthberts.school.nz wrote:

[Dave Lane]

Keep in mind, of course, that the Ministry has a conflict of interest in providing this information, because it's also responsible for selecting the vendors (sometimes without a tender process...). What's more, the people they talk to within the BigTech firms are generally public relations people (regardless of their stated title). They'll tell you anything you want to hear, more or less. They might even think they're telling you the truth. But the reality is that these corporations are colossal. Bigger by far than the NZ public service, with offices around the globe. These people have no idea what their own corporation is doing. What's more, because all the software is proprietary to the corporation, and the data held in its own data facilities, no one could prove that they're doing something different. Luckily, we occasionally get insights from whistleblowers, but BigTech is pretty quick to deal with them. Their ethics should *never* be considered credible. They will do whatever they can get away with to maximise shareholder value. I assure you of that.

And now, let's not forget, that these very corporations that *all our schools depend on every day for nearly everything they do* are holding sway in the US government (my former homeland). They're now calling the shots in the US. 

Ponder on that for a minute.

Ngā mihi,

Dave

[Dave Lane]

It's also worth noting that all these tech corporations explicitly reserve the right to alter their terms of use and ts&cs at any time without notification, so unless you're constantly tracking them and getting legal opinions on the implications of each change, it's likely you're mistaken about what they can and will do (and what they won't). I'm pretty sure the Ministry isn't providing that sort of advice to school boards. I'm pretty sure (based on talking to school board members) that they're not providing *any* legally credible advice on the terms of any of this software.

[Ben Green]

Bye all, I'm unsubscribing.

This was an otherwise useful and helpful group, but the recent militant barrage is borderline abusive and I'm not going to suffer it further.

Ngā mihi,

Ben Green

---

From: techies-f...@googlegroups.com <techies-f...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Dave Lane <dangerd...@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, 29 January 2025 3:03 pm

To: Techies for schools <techies-f...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [techies-for-schools] Terms & Conditions of use & Informed consent

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/15177949-1085-4e8e-a2fc-6155afb66381n%40googlegroups.com.

		Ben Green ICT Technician +64 3 348 5003 ext 207 Gre...@staff.cbhs.school.nz
www.cbhs.school.nz

[stu...@wakefield.net.nz]

In the interests of ensuring we all have the facts when debating such important topics: 

1. NZ formally adopted SIF (and created SIF-NZ) some years ago as a data interchange standard

https://data.a4l.org/sif-specifications-new-zealand/

2. The MOE Te Rito project implements this internally and interfaces with both compliant and non-compliant SMS products. More info here: https://terito.govt.nz/

(As an aside you may want to look at the guidance on this website for examples of communicating with parents about what data is collected, who uses it and for what purpose etc)

3. NZ Schools have the legal authority to set rules, policies etc as defined in Education and Training Act 2024. Thís includes deciding what technologies they will use, and setting policies(by-laws) such as it being mandatory for students to use them.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0038/latest/whole.html#LMS170676

School use of technologies is typically a legal contract between the school and the supplier (not the student and the supplier), where the school is accepting the terms on behalf of all of its "users" of that technology, however I accept there are some exceptions to this where students may be asked to accept terms directly. "Consent theatre" as described by Dave is a far broader problem in the industry, and one that we should all be concerned about.

4. Education versions of so-called "big tech" products are not necessarily licensed on the same basis as commercial or general public versions. Aside from price considerations there are often additional restrictions on features or functionality, or limitations on data usage .

5. ST4S (as per Andrews post) is deigned to provide schools with detailed information about a products security & privacy features and limitations such that a school can make an informed decision about benefits v risks. 

https://www.education.govt.nz/education-professionals/schools-year-0-13/digital-technology/choosing-safer-technologies-schools-and-kura

And in reference to Upton Sinclair, I think I prefer this quote from Brass Check (1919) which still seems quite apt in 2025:

The social body to which we belong is at this moment passing through one of the greatest crises of its history .... What if the nerves upon which we depend for knowledge of this social body should give us false reports of its condition?

[Keith Craig]

Stuart,

Thanks for this. I think we all need to keep in mind that the purpose of the list is “To discuss technical issues for those caring for school networks and ICT infrastructure in New Zealand.”

We are all entitled to our opinions but please keep discussion on the list on topic and friendly.

 

Regards

 

Keith

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/ad543049-e255-4896-91bb-a38b23d34af0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Dave Lane]

Thanks for engaging Stuart. Sorry if I've scared off a few. I've been on this list for about a decade and I note that there're often discussions that go beyond the technical, occasionally even poking fun at others in not very kind ways. They don't, however, tend to question or challenge authority. I think that's been to the great detriment of digital tech in NZ education. 

Re 1. What percentage of certified SMSs in NZ schools is fully compliant with that SIF specification? I hear of schools still unable to exchange data with other schools' systems. And I hear that the Ministry has funded conversion utilities from one SMS to another, but without adopting a common transfer format, meaning that you need an exponential investment in interchange code to provide full compatibility. If that's correct, as a commercial software engineer, I'm rather appalled.

Re 3. Doesn't the fact that the Ministry funds specific proprietary products which it provides at no (or very low) cost to schools completely upend the market for legitimate, merit-based software procurement by schools? I'd argue that, realistically, schools, nearly all of whom are resource-starved have no real choice but to go with what's funded by the Ministry. 

As far as the 'legal contract' goes - surely parents or guardians must at least have the opportunity to view the Ts&Cs of each software application used by schools before they can make an even vaguely informed decision about accepting the school's tech choices, no? Otherwise it's entirely uninformed consent, perpetrated by the school system.

Re 5. Given Ministry's decades long investment in & close (undocumented) relationship with MS and Google (and others), can ST4S be considered an independent or reliable information source?

And thanks for your Brass Check quote - a goodie, but to which I suggest a minor revision in light of recent developments: "The social body to which we belong is at this moment passing through one of the greatest crises of its history .... What if [up until now,] the nerves upon which we depend[ed] for knowledge of this social body [-should give- gave] us false reports of its condition?

Nāku noa, nā,

Dave

[stu...@wakefield.net.nz]

Kia ora Dave,

see responses inline below 

Nga mihi

Stuart

On Wednesday, 29 January 2025 at 15:42:34 UTC+13 dangerd...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks for engaging Stuart. Sorry if I've scared off a few. I've been on this list for about a decade and I note that there're often discussions that go beyond the technical, occasionally even poking fun at others in not very kind ways. They don't, however, tend to question or challenge authority. I think that's been to the great detriment of digital tech in NZ education. 

I fully appreciate that decisions MOE makes about digital technologies has widespread impact across all schools & kura in NZ. No problem with those decisions being challenged and debated, and happy to take feedback & criticism and/or suggestions about what we could be doing better, but as others have said here I think should aim to rise above the personal attacks (like we see playing out in some other jurisdictions right now), otherwise the important stuff gets lost in the rhetoric. The team at MOE that work in this area are all hardworking and extremely dedicated individuals that are focussed on making a difference for the NZ education system and students, not puppets in some great conspiracy as has been implied.

Re 1. What percentage of certified SMSs in NZ schools is fully compliant with that SIF specification? I hear of schools still unable to exchange data with other schools' systems. And I hear that the Ministry has funded conversion utilities from one SMS to another, but without adopting a common transfer format, meaning that you need an exponential investment in interchange code to provide full compatibility. If that's correct, as a commercial software engineer, I'm rather appalled.

I don't have a percentage, and it would be a bit misleading anyway as some SMS's have far greater marker share than others,  but overall there are only around 6 providers in this market with >5% market share. They are all at different stages of adoption, but integration of a non-compliant SMS to Te Rito converts data into a standardised format that can then be transmitted to a downstream compliant SMS natively. Think of Te Rito as essentially an information exchange or broker if you prefer.

Re 3. Doesn't the fact that the Ministry funds specific proprietary products which it provides at no (or very low) cost to schools completely upend the market for legitimate, merit-based software procurement by schools? I'd argue that, realistically, schools, nearly all of whom are resource-starved have no real choice but to go with what's funded by the Ministry. 

I accept this is a market distortion. I appreciate we probably won't agree on this point but our national software licensing scheme is about giving effect to what schools want at a lower unit cost than if they all purchased individually. Ultimately all software, regardless of who procures it, is funded from Vote Education so a completely devolved model would remove the distortion but arguably we may still end up spending the same if not more on an aggregate basis, but with schools also able to choose something else with that funding. If this is what the majority of schools want there are formal channels to have that discussion with MOE or Ministers. As an aside this is the situation for charter schools today.

As far as the 'legal contract' goes - surely parents or guardians must at least have the opportunity to view the Ts&Cs of each software application used by schools before they can make an even vaguely informed decision about accepting the school's tech choices, no? Otherwise it's entirely uninformed consent, perpetrated by the school system.

I agree it is good practice to let parents or guardians know what they are effectively agreeing to at point of enrolment or whenever new tech is introduced. 

Re 5. Given Ministry's decades long investment in & close (undocumented) relationship with MS and Google (and others), can ST4S be considered an independent or reliable information source?

ST4S is operated independently of the MOE by Education Services Australia. They operate the service for and on behalf of all federal, state & territory governments in Australia. We joined this scheme as our security & privacy legislation is broadly similar to Australia, and many products are used trans Tasman, so it is cost effective for us to leverage the Australian scheme and better for suppliers as they don't have to go through accreditation multiple times 

And thanks for your Brass Check quote - a goodie, but to which I suggest a minor revision in light of recent developments: "The social body to which we belong is at this moment passing through one of the greatest crises of its history .... What if [up until now,] the nerves upon which we depend[ed] for knowledge of this social body [-should give- gave] us false reports of its condition?

Indeed 

[Dave Lane]

Ata mārie, Stuart,

I've constructed a comprehensive response to your previous message, but I won't post it here as it's going beyond the brief of this group. I'll send it to you separately - if others want to see it, feel free to contact me at https://davelane.nz/contact

I would say, however, that we should have a publicly discoverable place to have these strategic & philosophical discussions - not mediated by Google or Microsoft, as this one is - because we're talking about the entire digital education experience of Aotearoa which, I think, warrants far greater scrutiny than it's previously received.

Also, for what it's worth, I interpret the suggestion that I see this situation with the dysfunction of digital tech in school as a 'giant conspiracy' to be pejorative. I think all my positions and assertions thus far have been well supported by my personal experience and your responses to my OIA requests. I think there is legitimate cause for major concern about the status of NZ digital tech in education.

I do think that the MOE has long needed a significant shift in its approach to digital technology, starting with greater accountability at the the leadership/decision-making level.

Nāku noa, nā,

Dave

[Julian Davison]

Hi,

I won't add too much to the "militant barrage";

I think, Dave, you have a good overview of what's going on, and raise some critically important questions that should definitely be discussed (albeit not really here - tho I don't know where the right place is).

Fundamentally, however, we're in this position purely because,as Stuart says above:

our national software licensing scheme is about giving effect to what schools want at a lower unit cost than if they all purchased individually.

Schools had autonomy over software purchasing way back when this all started. I was (still am, really) slightly offended that the Ministry of Education is paying (at the time) Microsoft for the privilege of perpetuating the myth that Microsoft Windows is the only viable OS for desktops and servers - the landscape has changed greatly from then, but that was effectively how it all began.

Feedback to the Ministry from across the country was that the prices schools were having to pay were High, and this was true for a vast (and growing) number of schools as computers became more ubiquitous in both staff and student settings. So a system was invented to centralise the acquisition of (notably at the time) MIcrosoft products. There were people who were wildly unhappy about this because it meant that a bunch of schools got their key software 'funded' but anyone who wasn't using MS didn't get "their share" of that funding. So the system has always been a bit controversial.

I mention all this because, while your concerns are interesting on an ethical and philosophical level, on a pragmatic folk-here-have-to-get-things-done level the horse has bolted onto the ship that's sailed, and all 20 years ago. Without a viable alternative, if you gain enough traction to dispel the Microsoft/Google deals the only result will be those companies get a zillion individual schools signing up, purely to maintain Business As Usual. Alongside which there will be a huge backlash as, effectively, the schools suddenly have to cover additional costs that they haven't had to worry about for multiple generations of BoTs.

But all this has come up before, here, in this very list. Ironically, I believe you and I have very similar views on what's wrong with the current system, and on what a far better solution would be. A different approach here might even have yielded some allies in the cause. Except...

You said, yesterday, according to the date on the post:

It's come to my attention that nearly every student at every school in NZ that has adopted the Ministry of Education-funded Microsoft and Google school services is contravening the terms & conditions of use for those services.

 and link a blog post with a date in 2021. Which suggests this isn't new information (as it came to your attention in 2021) and starts to look like you're just pulling out an axe to grind. I love your passion, and your in depth knowledge, and absolutely agree you're asking questions that need to be answered. 99% of the members in this group, however, aren't here for anything other than help from fellow techs who are primarily making the best of decisions that are out of their hands - as in, by the time we get here, the decision has been made and the goal is finding for help navigating that decision. From "how do I get Kamar to sync with Sporty", to "What sorts of things are in your Student Use of Technology agreement, if you have one?" to "Anyone else finding N4L are blocking trademe.co.nz even though it's whitelisted?"

Not "Am I averse to Google/Microsoft being in a position to train their AI on all my schools students work? Should I be? Will they?"

Recently you said

Seems to me this group needs to start asking itself some hard questions.

Having been here since Paul created the list all those years ago, I can assure you that it doesn't. The degree to which my statement is true varies across the members, but no one here is oblivious to the potential dangers of "Big Tech", nor, I would imagine, is anyone unaware of the Nation-wide vendor-lock-in that we have in NZ. Those discussions, however, aren't for here.

From the group description

an online community of technologists and educators discussing the more detailed aspects and issues encountered when providing IT support and services to schools in New Zealand.

J,

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/3007252a-c229-4118-986d-e7c442025cbdn%40googlegroups.com.

[Dave Lane]

Thanks Julian,

I'm not here to win hearts. There's no way to candy coat the message that the digital education built by the MOE is failing us. I'm in the fortunate position that I don't depend on the Ministry for my employment, so I can speak hard truths to the people with power. 

In the absence of a better place to discuss these issues which have been smouldering since 2021 when the School Trustees Association (NZSTA), since rebranded to 'Te Whakarōputanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa – New Zealand School Boards Association', declined to take my concerns to the Ministry of Education for fear of losing their funding from the Ministry (which, itself, speaks volumes, does it not?), I've chosen to bring them up here, where, as it turns out, it has come to the attention of the relevant people at the MOE.

I apologise to the unsung day-to-day techs saddled with the responsibility of keeping this creaking machine going for bringing my big-picture concerns to this forum, in the absence of a better place to do so. I sympathise with your plight in trying to keep running the needlessly complex and incompatible systems you're forced to contend with every day.

Some of you will remember the previous (first) time I popped my head above the parapets on this list last year. I proposed constructive solutions to the problem of the current Microsoft & Google hegemony selected by the MOE prior to the 'ship with the bolting horses' sailing. Those solutions are still relevant, and yes, I passionate about doing things quite differently. 

The problems with the digital tech status quo are going to accelerate quickly this year (my reason for popping up again) thanks to the globally catastrophic political changes happening in the US now, largely led by the very tech companies we're now completely beholden to. That should make us all sit up and take notice. 

I will set up a dedicated virtual space to discuss these matters so that only those with sufficient strategic interest in the future of our tamariki & educators, and their digital existences, need be involved. I'll post the details of that solution here later.

Ngā mihi,

Dave

[Julian Davison]

I'm not here to win hearts.

That's been quite apparent.

In the absence of a better place to discuss these issues which have been smouldering since 2021 when the School Trustees Association (NZSTA), since rebranded to 'Te Whakarōputanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa – New Zealand School Boards Association', declined to take my concerns to the Ministry of Education for fear of losing their funding from the Ministry (which, itself, speaks volumes, does it not?), I've chosen to bring them up here, where, as it turns out, it has come to the attention of the relevant people at the MOE.

While I (genuinely) sympathise with your plight of struggling to find a path to talk to "the relevant people at the MOE", a chunk of what you write comes across (at least to me) as somewhat belligerent and condescending. Everyone here is invested in the future of education in New Zealand. Indeed the group exists because it became apparent that techies were more isolated than their teaching colleagues, and could benefit from a communal online space where people wouldn't have to recreate the wheel by themselves.

We have been extremely fortunate over the years to have people from a range of organisations keep a quiet eye on the goings on (which includes, but is not limited to, N4L, MoE, Google, and MIcrosoft - whether it's former 'techies' who have moved into these organisations, or someone in them has simply taken the time to participate). I would hate to see this group become used as an "inside path" to such people who (historically) have not been here in any official capacity, and are extending (much appreciated!) good will to school techs.

Some of you will remember the previous (first) time I popped my head above the parapets on this list last year. I proposed constructive solutions to the problem of the current Microsoft & Google hegemony selected by the MOE prior to the 'ship with the bolting horses' sailing. Those solutions are still relevant, and yes, I passionate about doing things quite differently

As I said in my last post, this problem has been brewing for decades. Last year was also well after the ship with the bolting horses sailed. Your efforts are focussed on a different problem than these Microsoft/Google deals are designed to solve. Again, while laudable, unless you can solve the same problem (actual solutions that people can swoop in with and migrate the existing systems to reliably and in a matter of a couple of weeks - such that it might be practical to achieve over the long break over Christmas) this is all academic.

This group is about making the stuff work, it always has been. To gain traction here you need to be solutions focussed, not concentrating on the hegemony.

I will set up a dedicated virtual space to discuss these matters so that only those with sufficient strategic interest in the future of our tamariki & educators, and their digital existences, need be involved. I'll post the details of that solution here later.

Good plan.

J,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/cef2bc85-c100-4aaa-b9f1-89dd45ca2425n%40googlegroups.com.

[Dave Lane]

Thanks for your candour Julian :) - as is obvious, I'm incensed about the misallocation of very limited resources that the edtech status quo represents. 

Regarding the quiet lurkers, I'm sure that's had as much of a stifling effect as an enabling one. In years gone by, I've had a colleague threatened with firing from their local gov't IT roles for speaking out against Microsoft policy & practices on lists on which Microsoft execs were lurking (who subsequently quietly threatened said colleague's boss with their council being ejected from the AOG select agreement if he didn't censure his staffer). That's the sort of business we're dealing with. They still do this, worldwide, as standard operating procedure. You don't become a $trillion corporation by competing on your merits.

Regarding the 'solution', there's no such thing as a 'drop in solution' to replace the status quo. That's because the status quo is designed to *not* be interoperable, and it has received literally all the investment from gov't and local industry (to the extent it's involved at all) for the past few decades. 

Local industry has seen that all the value is going to the BigTech vendors, so the signalling from gov't has been loud and clear. That's why I say the fault lies with the gov't decision makers and leadership. Local service providers would need  confidence that whatever initiative proposed by gov't wasn't just a manipulative smokescreen designed to get a slightly larger 'discount' from the entirely arbitrary price Microsoft and Google extract from gov't coffers each time the agreement is 'renewed' as it just was, without any public discussion. The decision has to come from gov't to commit to a 3rd option, initially alongside the dominant oligarchy options. The fact that it wasn't obvious to gov't that pursuing a third path was appropriate from day one of 'edtech' (30ish years ago) is also a major concern, but now is far better than never.

The MOE's policy has painted NZ education into a corner, and only a fundamental shift in attitude at the MOE leadership level and local investment to support that will lead to a better solution. Thankfully, such a solution would, in the medium-to-longer term be far lower cost to NZ (it wouldn't be a foreign-owned corporate monopoly) and offer far more educationally valuable to our tamariki and educators than the status quo.

Ngā mihi,

Dave

[Sam McNeill]

Dave,

I'm quite prepared to overlook the rather snide comments directed at me and others you've made and I appreciate those on this group who have reminded all of us to keep it civil and professional with a focus on helping each other do our day jobs.

You may not be aware, but I've not worked for MSFT for approaching two years now and post on here only when and where I perceive I can add value across a range of technologies. As Julian (and others) have pointed out, those employees of "big tech" generally post here to try and add value to those in this community, help them be across the rapidly and ever changing landscape of the tech the MoE has invested in and do so to be helpful - it won't be in any of their JD's (as it was not in mine when I did work for MSFT).

I usually refrain from making comments about the politics in the homeland of others, but this one you made I will speak to as I've some first hand experience:

"thanks to the globally catastrophic political changes happening in the US now, largely led by the very tech companies we're now completely beholden to"

I'm not going to comment on the political changes, but I will say that in 7yrs at MSFT and having attended many in person and online "all hands" or "townhall" type meetings I would suggest as an organisation they were far from happy at Trump winning in 2016, have a majority Democractic employee base in the US and I'm sure would be less than thrilled about the recent political changes. Yes, MSFT (like all big tech) hedge their bets on political donations, but to suggest they (or any of the Silicon Valley companies) were leading the way for the current political changes in the US seems extremely implausible to me based on what I've seen and heard first hand inside that company. 

Whilst it is no doubt tempting to conflate Elon's association with the Republican party to the wider 'big tech' industry, based on what I've seen at MSFT I believe this would be a mistake.

That's it from me. Onwards and upwards to a very valuable group of which I've been a member of since 2010 I believe.

Cheers

Sam

[Dave Lane]

Thanks for alerting me to your change in employment Sam. Good on you for leaving. Regarding MS' part in the new regime in the US, I simply note that MS is one of history's biggest corporations, and the politics of the staff and the behaviour of the corporation can be quite different. In my experience with Microsoft, one hand seldom knows what the other is doing. Even more so for the C-suite, who only interested in one thing: maximising shareholder value, by whatever means possible. As you have no doubt seen, all of Silicon Valley/Redmond's power brokers are falling all over themselves to insert themselves into the new administration, and parley that into greater power, control & market exploitation on behalf of their shareholders.

[Julian Davison]

Thanks for your candour Julian :) - as is obvious, I'm incensed about the misallocation of very limited resources that the edtech status quo represents

There's no point tip-toeing around things. You're not the only one incensed. Indeed Ben Green has felt the same way - we worked together as the initial Microsoft Agreement was brought into being and had many a discussion about the merits of centrally funding a specific vendor (Microsoft) and the ongoing implications of creating far reaching vendor lockin by doing so. Your 'not here to win hearts" is costing you support for the cause. As is our continuing discussion here, rather than elsewhere.

Regarding the quiet lurkers, I'm sure that's had as much of a stifling effect as an enabling one.

We're clearly talking about different lurkers. Most members are school techies and not affiliated with multinational companies or government agencies. Additionally, and arguably more importantly, the focus of discussion here is predominantly on solutions to problems and sharing of ideas (as I mentioned earlier, such as with Acceptable Use Policy wordings). Policy, while interesting, is not the domain of this group as a general rule - which is why I feel moving the discussion to a more appropriate venue (particularly if you're not a fan of Google Groups in the first place) is a great idea.

Regarding the 'solution', there's no such thing as a 'drop in solution' to replace the status quo.

If you really want to overturn this hegemoniacal apple cart you need a better answer than this. You will not get public (or government) buy in without a viable alternative. "It can be done with OSS!" isn't an alternative, it's a dream.

Maybe someone overseas will do it, and we can stand on their shoulders. Maybe you'll do it, and we can stand on yours. Maybe we'll get a new government who's willing to embark on a project that will take many election cycles, and maybe each subsequent government will opt to continue that project, and we'll escape the Microsoft/Google jail. We've come full circle now, back to where we got to last time you raised this, last year.

There's a lot of people who agree with you, and a bunch more who would happily switch, given an alternative. None of that is why people come here, and from what I can see continuing this here is only alienating more people.

I would love to see proper OSS packages across the education landscape, and am convinced it would result in life being easier for everyone actually engaged in education.I'm even keen to be involved. However, this isn't the venue for making those plans. If you come up with one, I'll certainly be there, but for now this is the end of my perpetuating the barrage.

Shoutout to anyone who got this far, there's some super hard working and epic folk here, and I appreciate all their efforts.

J,

who's always available by email

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/41fef249-f5ef-4f21-a99b-b817cbb325fbn%40googlegroups.com.

[jon....@hvhs.school.nz]

This is the first time I have written anything on here and it feels odd for it to not be techy in any way.

I have found this forum to be useful and still have many key discussions saved.  I am not unsubscribing but I am baffled about this thread and the preceding one.  In the spirit of mixing metaphors, we all have our rabbit holes that when you open the curtains turn into a hill you're prepared to die on.  This is obviously your hill Dave and I wholeheartedly agree with many of your concerns around BigTech.  However, not everyone feels as passionately as you about this particular hill but would happily stride up their own mountain.

In my opinion some of the language used has been inflammatory, unpleasant and unnecessary.  It is ridiculous in the extreme to portray ones own stance as that of the enlightened and those who might agree in principle but much less vigorously as the great uneducated deluded masses which is most definitely how it is coming over.

We have already lost one member and others are feeling targeted to the point of needing to reply to defend themselves, their jobs and their career choices.  Can this please stop and those who want to debate this at length find somewhere else to bicker about who or what is the world's biggest evil right now.  It is taking up space in my inbox and is starting to resemble X which is about as harsh a put down as I can muster.

[Simon Wright]

Indeed, this just needs to end.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/3dfdfa97-a90b-483e-8693-042c11ddd2dbn%40googlegroups.com.

DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended for the addressee only and may contain information which is subject to legal privilege. This e-mail message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to privilege. Its contents are not necessarily the official view Otago Boys’ High School or communication of the Otago Boys’ High School. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this e-mail or any information in, or attached to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately or return the original message to Otago Boys’ High School by e-mail, and destroy any copies. Otago Boys’ High School does not accept any liability for changes made to this e-mail or attachments after sending.

[Julian Davison]

My apologies. I will do better.

J, 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/CAEJps9p7z_KZkxSUyT-b0iJtgF1zQGTdudXxhAiwivAhQ%2Bpn6A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dave Lane]

I also apologise to the group. I can see my approach has been counter-productive. My next message to the group will be a link to a different place to continue the discussion.

Noho ora mai,

[Jake Wills]

I too am sorry for starting the conversation that caused all this to blow up.

I was just after advice on how to deal with a situation in my school that I was struggling to navigate, and trying to work out a solution that would ultimately ensure the kid doesn't miss out... as that's what we are all here for, the best outcomes for the kids.

[Craig Knights]

Don't be, that was an interesting question, exactly the kind of question we stay on this list for. Me I'm not in school IT anymore, currently uni IT, but it's still relevant to that.  I drew a parallel to a problem we bump into at times. The "I'm not doing MFA on my personal phone!"

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/da971db7-6237-452e-96fa-e0c1bfb01439n%40googlegroups.com.

[Julian Davison]

I don't think any of this is on you, Jake. Your question is exactly what the group is for - my apologies for adding to the spiral that was wildly off topic, and totally unrelated to your query.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/techies-for-schools/da971db7-6237-452e-96fa-e0c1bfb01439n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Edwards]

Create a group, you might be surprised who joins it!