A group of MPs have accused a government agency of restricting schools from deploying open-source software.
Nineteen MPs, led by former teacher John Pugh, are backing a parliamentary motion which claims that Becta (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency), the government's advisors on the use of ICT in education, is using outdated frameworks which exclude suppliers of open source software.
Schools are advised that they should purchase all ICT products and services through a Becta framework. The MPs claim that these frameworks are biased in favour of large software suppliers and discriminates against smaller software suppliers, such as open source developers.
The motion reads, "[This House] expresses concern that Becta and the Department for Education and Skills (DFES), through the use of outdated purchasing frameworks, are effectively denying schools the option of benefiting from both free and open source software." The motion also commends higher education establishments for their deployments of open source. Universities are not bound by Becta frameworks.
The group of MPs has won support from the Open Schools Alliance, a group of organisations which includes the Open Source Consortium, SchoolForge, FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and the UKUUG (UK Unix and Open Systems User Group).
Becta and the DFES said they "strongly rejected" the claims of the MPs. Releasing a joint statement to ZDNet UK, they said the issue of open source was one of "measured inclusion, rather than blanket exclusion".
"We work with software providers — both open source and proprietary. Becta supports the principles of open source software and recognises the value-for-money benefits that larger-scale deployment could bring," the statement read. Becta denied the allegations that its frameworks were outdated and warned, "Acceptance onto the framework is by the assessment of the capabilities of a supplier to deliver and support a comprehensive suite of technologies, and not by providing a single, specific product."
That statement could rule out a number of open source solutions, which are often provided by smaller suppliers.
Becta's stance toward open source has attracted controversy in the past. Last year it released a report indicating that considerable cost savings could be made by deploying open source. But research released in March of this year showed that Becta's database of 3,000 educational applications included just 18 that could run on Linux.
Its chairman, Andrew Pinder, has given mixed signals. Speaking at Oxford University's The Future of E-Learning event, Pinder said, "Typically [teachers who run IT] would be people who have a real passion about open source — as if open source is any different to any other software. It's just the pricing structure that's different, that's all. But they have a passion. It's a religion, it's a real belief, and again they have a belief about bits of technology that are going to change things. What they don't do, however, is organise things properly."
Becta is reaching the end of a three-year Memorandum of Understanding with Microsoft for the provision of its software to schools. The MoU expires in a month's time, at the end of December. Becta had planned to produce a report on the partnership in June, but that report now looks likely to be released in January. Becta says the delay is due to the prolonged wait for Vista.
Talkback
"..But they have a passion. It's a religion, it's a real belief, and again they have a belief about bits of technology that are going to change things. What they don't do, however, is organise things properly."
I wonder if Mr. Pindar thinks believing in democracy is a religion? How about a belief in the importance of habeas corpus or the need for a declaration of universal human rights?
It is irresponsible and deliberately misleading to compare the convictions of Open Source advocates to religious fanaticism.
Open Source is about acknowledging that the business model for proprietary software encourages monopolistic business practices and wanting to do something about it.
Commercial monopolies *of any kind* stifle competition and limit consumer choice. To encourage monopolies, as the governments of the eastern bloc did for so many years, restricts the development of society itself. This is particularly true of software which we rely on so completely in our daily lives.
There are numerous, credible Open Source businesses around the UK and EU. In fact there is a substantial amount of European Commission money going into projects that are developing the EU eco-system around OSS. The UK government should be encouraging the growth of the Open Source industry not paying lip service to it and wasting everyone's time.
Mr. Pindar's views would not be out of place in the leafy business parks of Winnersh Triangle.
Why do we seem to be hung up on OpenSource equating to Linux, this is not the case, most of the OpenSource applications run quite happily on non Linux desktops and servers.
Can we also have a little bit of reality in respect of the skills of teachers in deploying and supporting non-windows platforms, as a parent I would rather my Childs teachers were concentrating on teaching rather than getting involved in trying to support many different platforms so as to service an anti-Microsoft crusade (lets forget the euphemistic "Proprietary Software" flag that this is usually disguised as) and as most IT taught in schools is vocational in nature the teaching should be focused on the platform deployed in business which is still Microsoft. (I also believe that the actual Exams are specifically focused on Microsoft platforms either explicitly or implicitly which means that deploying and teaching OpenSource applications would not enable the students to pass there exams). Teaching OpenSource IT in schools would be like teaching feet and inches rather than metric, totally valid to teach, but useless in the real world.
School level IT is not (unfortunately) the same, or even preparation for, the IT that is taught in Further Education, the premise for this article shows that our leaders have no concept of this.
Keeping the religious theme I think this whole article sound very similar to the debate currently in full swing about the teaching of alternate theories to Darwin.
A little bit of research would have told our MP’s that:-
• The Becta framework has just been renewed, therefore it is not an “Old” framework
• HE and FE also purchase most product through Framework Agreements
• Framework agreements are only required to be used if the purchase price of the solution is in excess of 130Kish
• OpenSource applications can run on Microsoft and Apple server and desktop platforms and often do.
• No Tier 1 vendors yet ship PC’s pre-installed with Linux clients making the installation of Linux on desktops VERY labour intensive, not something that most schools can tolerate or afford.
• It is EC rules that push the public sector into Framework agreements, which by there very process will always prohibit smaller companies from participating. And as most frameworks are only renewed on 3 or 4 year cycles they will always prohibit new, startup or emerging companies from participation, whether the sell Open-Source or not.
"I also believe that the actual Exams are specifically focused on Microsoft platforms either explicitly or implicitly which means that deploying and teaching OpenSource applications would not enable the students to pass there exams."
So exactly how shallow are the subjects that are being examined upon? If, as you imply, the subjects being taught are thinly disguised vehicles for Microsoft products then it sounds like the MPs are right to be concerned.
From my experience, and that of my friends with teenage children I would confirm that we seem to be providing IT training rather than IT Education. Which means we are training our children to use what is being currently being used by business and in the home rather than educating them in IT (the picture ZDnet have put up to accompany this article would never be seen in most schools as most do not teach programming) . See the excellent article in Decembers PC Pro on the state of IT education which confirmed all my prejudices on the state of IT in schools.
I think you are correct, that the state of IT education in UK plc is worrying, with all the focus being on quantity rather than quality, I think any discussion over Open-Source vs. Microsoft is actually focusing on the wrong problem. We first need to look at the syllabuses before we try and second guess why it is that schools purchase what they do via Becta or any other route.
"Teaching OpenSource IT in schools would be like teaching feet and inches rather than metric, totally valid to teach, but useless in the real world." Posted by: 333967 (Tuesday 28 November 2006, 1:03 PM)
Teaching an 8 year old how to use MS Office 2000 today is surely more like the Feet and Inches half of the analogy. By the time they go on to further education or the work place it will be 8-10 years out of date .. which is actually more like Leagues and Chains in the world of IT.
Maybe "333967" is still using MS Office, but there are a very large number of organisations out there who have cut over to Open Office; even more in Europe than here.
As I understand the exams, they are task oriented and have nothing to do with the interface of the tool at hand. Let's face it; with the massive variability between different versions of MS Word they couldn't be, now could they.
OPen source is good but as the report said compatability with all of the School software that's been around for a long time is'nt something that can be easily dealt with.Maybe Minister's need to start to look into way's of having the core applications recoded so that they can function on the Open source framework,but as a stopgap they could try using Wine an open source bridge that allows windows programs to run on a Linux operating system,See PCAnswers issue 167,not out yet by the way for an overview of the possibilities.
Hope this is of use.
I've worked in the IT industry all my working life (I'm now 46!!), and every since PC's have grown in the work place, two things have always been true, Microsoft and Intel, many new ideas have arisen over they years, but have been "Removed" by these two working in collusion.
I working in the finance industry, and are forced to use Intel(HP) and XP on the desk top, but all our key system run on Sun/Unix (Now moving Linux for cost).
I've educated my children about IT and show them all aspects Windows, Mac, Linux and even dos command shell, but they one they all like best is the Mac.
Lenova ships a Linux laptop, Dell provides blank pcs and HP will ship desktops with Linux pre-installed.
As a former ICT teacher, I tell my work colleagues that the ICT syllabus is should be renamed "How to use Microsoft Office" as it accounts for at least 90% of the child's work.
Capturing the hearts of the young is vital for Microsoft, so they'll give away software. I mean - why not? They're getting good quality education in MS' product.
Most of the children had no idea that they were using a 'spreadsheet' - they'd never heard of them, they only know 'Excel'. The same goes for MS Word and Powerpoint. Unfortunately, the same went for my colleagues. I demo'd OpenOffice on Linux in the staff room (not through any revolutionary zeal - I thought they ought to be aware) and the number of IT people who asked me what version of Windows that was was - well - all of them.
It's also worth pointing out that the nature of computing has changed hugely for most schools over the last 20 years. It started out as a technical subject and those who chose it for exam level knew that hard work was required. The nature of the newer "ICT" is to dumb down the subject because it's now a core one - and in my school at least - must be taken by everyone. How can the results improve if the subject's too hard?
So ICT is really about how to use everyday software packages and MS have got in there - it'll take a courageous mind-shift to lever them out.