MOE mandatory technical requirements

[Patrick Dunford]

Good afternoon.

I recently had cause to download a document of Approved IT Contractors
from the Ministr website and it comes in with a dictation that schools
are mandated to use these approved technicians for certain types of work
in a school. These are currently listed as
* structured cabling installation services
* structured cabling product supply
* wireless integration services

As an educational community this appears to be overriding the authority
that the management of individual schools have in order to decide how to
get a job done in their school. In particular the schools are locked
into a small number of about three approved wireless hardware vendors of
which I guess most of you can pick the names.

This amounts to backroom deals by the government to guarantee favourable
business dealings for a small number of hardware vendors who are working
through their resellers to get control of the wireless hardware market
in schools and have lock-in opportunities amounting to loads of money
these schools will have to fork out in order to continue supporting
these systems in years to come. Once your school has run out of 90 days
of support then some of these vendors demand you purchase a contract for
ongoing assistance, even to get technical documents from their website.
When was the last time you had to pay Microsoft or Apple money to access
their knowledgebase on the web?

There is loads of other good quality wireless gear out there that can do
the job in schools, but which is not included in those specifications,
and which by the looks of it schools do not have the ability to choose
from, according to this statement. And I have spoken to independent
cable contractors with many years of experience and they have told me
the Ministry cable contracts are not worth the paper they are written
on, because it's very hard to make a reasonable return on those
contracts. The cablers that do come in will be running cables up the
walls of classrooms to the wireless units, or looking for other sales,
in order to make the contracts worthwhile.

Some schools have chosen to enter all of school procurement contracts
the government has been touting as being suitable for IT provision. When
I looked into those contracts, again they offered the school very little
advantage. What may appear to be some sort of modest price saving on
some items turns into a lock-in where the school is obliged to buy
everything from the vendor, so they can't shop around for cheaper prices
elsewhere.

I wonder how long it will be before the government demands that schools
are mandated to enter these procurement contracts or other lock-in deals
like overall IT support. Some of these companies have been giving
schools loans to fork out five figure amounts for new servers and other
infrastructure they have no need of and will never use a fraction of the
capability of.

[gre...@staff.cbhs.school.nz]

Please link or direct us to the document in question so that we can see what you're talking about.

Certainly some MoE-funded projects (SNUP) have a long warranty period (25 years on the structured cabling) so they don't want schools voiding their warranty by making DIY or third-party contractor changes (even if those changes are expertly done - you break the chain of blame when something goes wrong).

I'm not disputing the danger of underhand lock-in deals that aren't in the best interest of the client (schools) - but this may well not be the case here.

[Patrick Dunford]

Whilst we understand this is a requirement for schools in the SNUP programme (and in fact they do not choose the supplier at any level as it is totally controlled by the Ministry), this appears to apply outside of the SNUP programme and carry through, for example schools may be getting work outside the SNUP requirements or new work and it appears they are required even for work outside SNUP to use a Ministry approved contractor.

I would think this also applies to state integrated schools, even though their infrastructure is usually funded by the proprietors (although they have been eligible for SNUP funding).

In the course of looking this up I have found a number of vendor websites making the same claims and with the same documents listed on them.

http://www.education.govt.nz/school/running-a-school/technology-in-schools/technical-information/applying-contractor-lists/

As you would see in there the Ministry has been attempting to stitch up electrical contractors approvals as well. The problems with these processes is that schools ending being beholden to whoever has the time and money to spend on being approved in this process. It is not friendly towards sole trader or other smaller electrical contractors even if they can tick all the boxes. This means schools are losing the opportunity to work with parent communities to tap into the existing relationships they can often draw on for trades skills and sponsorship. There are already enough legal requirements on the standard of electrical work and industry regulation without mandating that schools must have an electrician who is on a list sanctioned by the MOE.

I remember when the Ministry started insisting that trainers for Student Management Systems had to be approved, and it made no real sense, since the schools could ask the vendor to ensure the trainers were of suitable character or whatever. But the MOE has a lot of other stuff they want out of SMSs, they aren't just for the school's benefit.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Patrick Dunford]

Also read this document here particularly its last paragraph

http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Primary-Secondary/Property/School-property-design/ElectricalInstallationStandards.pdf

"APPENDIX B – APPROVED ICT CONTRATORS LIST (Normative) B1. Approved ICT contractors list The Ministry, schools, and their agents (such as project managers or designers) shall select suppliers from the Ministry’s Approved ICT Contractors List for the following categories of ICT services and products: a) Structured cabling installation services b) Structured cabling product supply c) Wireless integration services. This requirement is to be followed whether the ICT work is undertaken by any Ministry programme of work, or independently by a school. Over time, the list is intended to be extended to include other types of ICT contractor. The list of approved ICT contractors can be found at http://www.minedu.govt.nz/."

Again - it will be the big companies that have bothered to fill in all the paperwork, tick all the boxes, paid for the Ministry certification and have the relationships with the list of hardware vendors who have big enough business interests that the Government thinks schools should be beholden to, that win out these deals. Schools I work with have saved significant sums of money by employing small independent contractors (who are just as good if not better than the big players) to do major ICT and other contract work at their sites for years, who will now find increasingly they are being required to kowtow to Government backroom deals stiched up with big companies who will end up costing them a lot more.

On 25/11/2015 15:35, gre...@staff.cbhs.school.nz wrote:

[Tim Harper]

Hi Patrick,

sadly this sort of requirement is a necessity.  I have seen a school get additional network outlets installed.  They did not use a company that understood networking and the school's property manager asked a local electrician to do it.  He wired up the outlets treating it all like standard electrical cabling, running the connection to the next outlet in series off the first outlet!  It didn't work and a real company had to come and redo the work.  This was prior to the approved contractor list coming into play.

The fact is that much of this work is beyond school managers to understand.  This doesn't apply just to electrical work.  I have seen IT companies big and small completely fail to understand basic concepts, especially to do with DNS.

Schools are already required to work within many frameworks.  Payroll, staffing, property, curriculum and assessment all come to mind as examples where schools can make choices but must operate within guidelines.  This is really no different.  

Whilst this may (or may not) be seen as draconian it is there to protect schools and I support it.

regards,

Tim Harper


Phone 0800 755 966 option 2 then 3 (SchoolZone)
Phone 03 443 5167 (DDI)
Mobile 027 443 1236
Fax 03 443 0491

t...@mtaspiring.school.nz
www.mtaspiring.school.nz

[Patrick Dunford]

The Ministry could produce a list of recommended suppliers or guidelines in how to choose a preferred supplier, that smaller schools could use. The management of those schools is already accountable and in my view, adequate processes for accountability already exist within schools, in the example given the wasted funding would have had to be addressed within that school community and as you have put it they did actually get the problem addressed.

The example there for electrical contractors is very hard to justify when they already are required to meet the NZS 3000 electrical standard and the legal requirements of the licensing regime for electricians. These standards are already established for public safety in New Zealand and there is no need to superimpose an additional layer of bureaucracy of electrical standards on top of that by the Ministry.

The approved contractors schemes and for that matter SNUP lock the schools into a limited pool of suppliers and contractors and there is plenty of scope for this to be abused. I used the example of schools being sold expensive equipment they didn't need such as big servers - and in the process throwing out the old servers that were only a year or two old. I have personally witnessed similar business pitches being made under the guise of the SNUP program in a particular school because it offered to provide servers if needed which means that one or two companies were given an opportunity to pitch their case for a new and expensive server at a time when on site iron is becoming far less common.

If you look at the example of the all of schools procurement contract it was an exclusive contract - all the school's business had to go through so they are lock-in contracts. Due to the pressure on school funding, schools are obliged to provide the best value for the money they spend, and quite often they have developed their own relationships with schools that have delivered what their communities need without interference from central government. They achieve this because the skill set needed to install cabling and a wireless system is not actually rocket science and provided a good vendor is selected for the hardware getting a good solid system is actually very easy to achieve.

You have said in payroll and staffing etc schools have choices but must operate within guidelines and therefore this is no different. Actually, it is. The MOE trusts the school boards to select the right staff without prior vetting by the Ministry. The equivalent of what you have stated would be the MOE becoming involved directly in the appointment of staff within a school.

[Patrick Dunford]

We have just finished a SNUP project in the school where of course the Ministry chose all the suppliers. The wireless specialists are based in Auckland and we are in the South Island. Incredibly, the wireless people believed they could offer a good standard of service to the school by flying someone down from Auckland whenever a site visit was needed. Even after the 90 days free support has run out, the school is apparently obligated (according to the Ministry people I spoke to) to enter a new support contract with this company. I somehow don't think those flights from Auckland are going to be cheap for them, and not going to compare well with someone based in the city who can be there in half an hour if there is a major equipment failure affecting the wireless system.

On 25/11/2015 18:44, Tim Harper wrote:

[Steve Cosgrove]

"This amounts to backroom deals by the government to guarantee favourable 

business dealings ...."  I suggest adding the 'perceived' in this sentence.

Steve

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:31:19 PM UTC+13, Patrick Dunford wrote:

...

[Tim Harper]

Hi Patrick

Teachers generally must be registered so the school can with very few exceptions only employ teaching staff who meet requirements.   Other staff who interact with students must be police vetted - soon (if not already) all school employees must be police vetted.  Police vetting is also used by Eg SNUP too as well as other agencies.

--

[SteveC]

"The Ministry could produce a list of recommended suppliers or guidelines in how to choose a preferred supplier, that smaller schools could use. "

When I was contracting to UFBiS in 2012, I was lead author on two reports with guidelines as suggested by Patrick.  Perhaps the Ministry should update these guidelines, rather than inflicting large, on-going, expenses on schools for their wireless networks!

• Understanding Wireless Guidelines 
• Build and Maintain a Wireless Network
  

These documents were always searchable on the minedu website, but not transferred to education.govt.nz.

Steve

Senior Lecturer, Whitireia New Zealand

[Patrick Dunford]

It turns out there is a Ministry mandated standard for wireless equipment as well. It goes into the number of radios and aerials and their type in an access point and a lot of technical details that are questionable, I would believe.

For example the $150 access point from a well known "non-approved" industrial vendor obviously did not handle a larger number of devices in schools I know of, as the $400 models - but were in fact adequate for more junior levels where there was less technology used in a classroom. According to this spec everyone must be installing the equivalent of the $400 models - which probably blows out to $800 by the time you have got it from one of the small number of "approved" suppliers.

I can understand there is some reasonable expectation of the standards of the equipment, but no one is telling schools what they should buy in the desktop or laptop hardware, operating systems or software - a far greater cost and very significant - which makes me think that something of that nature is probably coming in the future.

The documentation is on the new website - they aren't bothering to redirect the old URLs but you can find them.

--

[WHS Ict Technician]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 10:05:09 AM UTC+13, Patrick Dunford wrote:

It turns out there is a Ministry mandated standard for wireless equipment as well. It goes into the number of radios and aerials and their type in an access point and a lot of technical details that are questionable, I would believe.

For example the $150 access point from a well known "non-approved" industrial vendor obviously did not handle a larger number of devices in schools I know of, as the $400 models - but were in fact adequate for more junior levels where there was less technology used in a classroom. According to this spec everyone must be installing the equivalent of the $400 models - which probably blows out to $800 by the time you have got it from one of the small number of "approved" suppliers.

it was quite clear from reading it that one 'partner' had a big hand in designing the spec. Reminds me of the building codes. I'm surprised they didn't specify the AP colour /s

[Keith Craig]

We are an independent school so technically not subject to the MOE rules. However I have found that they cover 90% of situations very well and have been very useful to quote when non-technical people start suggesting ways of saving a few dollars. These few dollars saved turned into much bigger amounts when it became necessary to rework things. 

I have also had to call back an architect recommended cabling contractor twice on one job. On another job had an electrical engineer design a LAN with 200m CAT-6 runs. I specified "MoE spec", "MoE accredited contractor". This is no guarantee of a good job but it helps when arguing with the money people & gets you a certain minimum standard.

These kinds of standards are designed to cover most situations. As IT professionals we know when it is possible to deviate from the standards without compromising the overall result. Many decision makers - principals and/or school boards do not. 

I would rather the standards erred on the high side rather than the low side, an over spec access point rather than under spec, too many network points rather than not enough.

Keith Craig

Systems Administrator

Dilworth School

Mob: +64 21 541549

Office: +64 9 5231060 x843

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Patrick Dunford]

Not subject at all.... private and state-integrated schools are not mandated to use the approved contractors.