| Becta | |
|---|---|
| Formation | 1998 |
| Extinction | 2011 |
| Purpose/focus | Promotion and integration of ICT in education |
| Location | Millburn Hill Road , Coventry, UK |
| Region served | UK |
| Chief Executive | Stephen Crowne |
Becta (formerly known as the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) was a non-departmental public body (popularly known as a Quango)] funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, in the UK It was a charity and a company limited by guarantee. In the post-election spending review in May 2010, it was announced that Becta was to be abolished.[1] The organisation went into liquidation in April 2011 following its funding from government ceasing in March 2011.
Contents |
Becta was the Government's lead agency for information and communications technology (ICT) in education, covering the United Kingdom. It was established in 1998 through the reconstitution of the National Council for Educational Technology (NCET). Becta was a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. It was based on Millburn Hill Road in Canley, Coventry in the University of Warwick Science Park.
In its former capacity, it oversaw the procurement of all ICT equipment and e-learning strategy for schools. It is a member of European schoolnet.
Becta's objectives are "to influence strategic direction and development of national education policy to best take advantage of technology" and "to develop a national digital infrastructure and resources strategy leading to greater national coherence."[2] Becta have recently launched a campaign which is designed to help consumers (initially parents) better understand how technology can benefit student's education and improve overall school performance. The campaign website can be found at Next Generation Learning
Chairman of the Board, Andrew Pinder, in a seminar in October 2006[3] deplored the "hopeless disorganization" and "extraordinary fragmented" supply side in the educational sector, and added:
There are tens of thousands of little, real little garage operations, producing software and bits of kit, and very very few, in fact no big firms, only about half a dozen mid-size firms, responding in the UK industry and generally around the world.Now, part of that is in response to the very disparate buying power largely in the hands of individuals in schools who spend small amounts of money, who are almost hobbyists, in the way that they have enthusiasm and a passion about. Typically they would be people who have a real passion about Open Source -- as if open source is any different from any other software -- it's just the pricing structure is 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 organize things properly...
How do we organize education to be much more effective, much more efficient, to use the investment that it’s got, to change the way it does things, to become more disciplined about the way it organizes itself, in some respects, to subsume the individual professionalism into the greater good of a larger institutional professionalism, to produce better organizations, rather than vying to be just individually better teachers...
Teachers like being stars, they like being in front of the classroom, they like relating to the kids, they have a passionate belief in it. But they are not necessarily are people who are going to organize everybody else around them to produce a production line with the outputs that everyone agrees on.
On 21 November 2006 John Pugh MP sponsored a Parliamentary Early Day Motion, now signed by 130 MPs:
express[ing] concern that Becta and the Department for Education and Skills, through the use of outdated purchasing frameworks, are effectively denying schools the option of benefiting from both free and open source and the value and experience small and medium ICT companies could bring to the schools market.[4]
Within two days Becta rejected the criticism, stating that:
The frameworks are awarded in accordance with EU procurement legislation... against a range of criteria based around quality of provision and service, and against the extent to which they meet the requirements of the functional and technical specifications – specifications that have been developed in conjunction with all stakeholders, including members of the open source community...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....
Institutions are not mandated to purchase from within these frameworks, but when selecting services outside the framework they are advised to ensure that their chosen provider is able to deliver a service which matches the functional requirements and offers comparable value for money.[5]
However, Crispin Weston pointed out that:
The British government is supplying £40 million to Local Authorities to acquire learning platforms, with the strong recommendation that they select successful candidates from Becta's approved list. Schools wishing to use platforms not selected by their local authority are free to do so but must find the money from other budgets. [So, a]lthough strictly true, Becta's response is disingenuous, as it is clear that the injection of £40 million into Local Authority budgets will seriously disadvantage suppliers whose products are not on the framework. Becta argues that approved suppliers may still sub-contract to SME or open-source solutions, although they will clearly prefer to develop their own solutions, allowing them to use proprietary interactions between inter-dependent components of what will become local monopolies.[6]
In an article in January 2007 John Pugh added:
If we don't wake up to some of the issues the motion highlights, we will end up with second-rate education for pupils, who will have no understanding about how IT is developed or is likely to progress... Becta and the government only seem comfortable working with larger vendors and suppliers. I think this is partially timidity, but also because of the over-comfortable relationship the government has with some of the bigger players.[7]
Becta administers the procurement of ICT equipment for schools using framework agreements, which last for four years and have been deemed legal under European law.
The result of these agreements is that educational institutions in the UK intending to purchase goods and services relating to ICT, including system design, hardware and software provision, training, implementation and ongoing technical support, where the budget would breach the procurement threshold (of about £100k)[10] can save the hassle by procuring from a company on a Becta maintained list.[11]
The listed companies are also deemed to comply with the appropriate technical standards as well as Becta's Framework for ICT Technical Support (FITS).
While schools and Local Authorities are not legally obliged to purchase from the listed suppliers, these two factors create an enormous pressure for them to do so. The effect is to create a closed market. If, for example, none of these suppliers are willing to provide Open Source Software to run servers and networks, then such products will not be found in schools, whether or not that was the intended consequence. (See Becta and open source)
Becta’s Learning Platforms Services Framework offers a list of approved suppliers to provide the best-value Learning platform for each school. The Learning Platforms Services Framework runs from January 2007 to December 2009.
On 24 February 2006, Becta dispatched a contract notice for this four year framework agreement of unspecified value to deliver various "Learning Services" such as Virtual learning environments and other ICT products. Participating companies had to have a net worth of at least £700,000 to qualify and satisfy a list of functional requirements.[12] The window for tenders closed on 30 March 2006[13] and the 10 suppliers chosen from 119 applicants[14] announced on 22 December 2006 were[15]
When challenged in an interview on the question of why none of these suppliers made available the open source platform Moodle, Stephen Lucey said:[16]
Suppliers need a range of skills to offer support over a period of time. Some suppliers came forward with open source as part of their offering... [and] didn't meet the criteria... [Moodle] is available [through the frameworks]. It is up to schools or local authorities to specify functionality. It is up to suppliers to come forward with products that meet that need.
In 5 January 2007, Crispin Weston, who had helped Becta draw up the criteria used to select suppliers, asked the EC Competition Commission to investigate his allegation that a significant number of the successful tenders had failed to implement the mandatory functional requirements, including particular aspects of inter-operability.[17] He also added in his letter to the Commission that they should take action on the further issue of:
[T]he insistence that many different categories of software within a particular school or Local Authority should all be supplied by a single supplier [which] has serious anti-competitive implications."[6]
Gerard Toplass of Azzurri Education said they had invested £250k (and six programmers working 15 hours a day for six months) into Becta's stringent testing regime.[17] He also expected learning platforms to be sold separately in all but those schools that are being built from scratch.[14]
Becta’s Infrastructure Services Framework lets schools purchase infrastructure services which comply with national standards and specifications for educational ICT. The Infrastructure Services Framework runs from August 2006 to July 2009.
On 23 November 2005, Becta dispatched a contract notice for this framework agreement in the Official Journal of the European Union of unspecified value to deliver computer hardware and networks to capable of running high speed access and a common systems framework to schools.[18] On 8 August 2006 the contracts were officially awarded,[19] though the publication of the announcement was not until 27 September.[20]
The 16 successful companies were:
Each company must be capable of providing the entire infrastructure for an entire school alone as part of the deal; there is no room for specialist suppliers for, say, just the computer mice.
Though Becta claims to have negotiated purchase prices which mean "it will be harder to get it cheaper anywhere else",[21] Becta reveals no pricing guidelines. Instead, schools are supposed to write a specification and run a mini-competition like an auction among those of the sixteen suppliers who express an interest in order to determine the price.[22] This work itself can be contracted out by schools as well after a mini-competition among listed consultancy suppliers. (see Consultancy services framework agreement)
Once the contractor is chosen, a Service Order is signed between the two parties specifying the services that are being provided, and the prices. Becta should receive quarterly management reports from the companies operating under the regime detailing what Service Orders have been signed, and the full accounts.[23]
The Consultancy Services Framework is designed for schools to engage with high-calibre consultants at competitive rates. Consultancy can be used to develop and achieve a school’s vision for ICT. The Consultancy Services Framework began in January 2006 and continues until December 2008.
On 21 December 2005, this framework agreement was announced allowing schools to hire "external consultants to take responsibility for the often time consuming and costly decisions around developing an ICT infrastructure" which is due to last until 2008.[24]
The 21 winning consultancy contractors are: 3E's Enterprise, Brian Farrington, Cambridge Education, Cocentra, Deloitte MCS Ltd, EdICTs Ltd, Edunova (WSP Building Ltd), Enterprise MCP Ltd, Four S, Hornagold & Hills, Improcom, Logica CMG, Mantix, Mason Communications Ltd, Mouchel Parkman Services, NCC Services, Novatia, PriceWaterhouseCoopers Ltd Liability Partnership, RM, Serco, Socitm Ltd, Tribal Group.
Becta recognizes that the overlap between these companies who may be managing the procurement on behalf of the schools, and the companies who would eventually be bidding to supply the contracts, could result in conflicts of interest. To overcome this, Becta allows a company to "withdraw from the process once the specification for the ICT infrastructure [which they have written] is defined" before competing for the provision of the infrastructure.[25]
(40 suppliers.)
A three year "Laptops for teachers" framework agreement ran from 2003 to 2006.
Becta claims on its website that the advantages of their regime were the extended warranties, and savings of £45 million. The framework agreement is now closed
(23 suppliers) This framework agreement ran from 2004 to January 2007 and is now closed.
A new procurement framework for software licensing was launched by Becta in collaboration with OGCbuying.solutions on 9 October 2008. The new arrangements replace the previous Becta software licensing framework agreement. The new framework will provide the education sector with a quick, EU-compliant route to procure software.
The 12 successful suppliers are: Academia Ltd, Civica Services Ltd, European Electronique, Insight Direct (UK) Ltd, Joskos Solutions, Pugh Computers Ltd, Ramesys (e-business services) Ltd, RM plc, SCC, Sirius Corporation, Trustmarque Solutions and Viglen Limited.
The new agreement will run for four years.
The Internet Services Accreditation was set up as a result of an initiative from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) to provide guidance on this subject. The service enables schools to purchase internet services from accredited suppliers that meet and maintain specific standards in content filtering and service performance.
In addition to the existing frameworks, Becta has one more in the pipeline.
In 2005, recognizing the serious issues posed by the overwhelming market dominance of Capita SIMS and the lack of competition, Becta commissioned a report called “Management Information Systems and Value for Money”,[26]
Becta report highlighted the fact that the charges to schools of maintaining current Management Information Systems (MIS) from the dominant supplier has increased up to threefold since 1999. BECTA suggests that many schools and colleges are being charged ever-increasing amounts to maintain their MIS and are not receiving value for the money they spend.
The key issues that also emerged from Becta report were as follows:
- For many schools costs are escalating very significantly with charges from the dominant supplier, now between 2.5 and 3 times their 1999 levels
- There are very significant barriers to the effective choice by schools/LAs and there is a lack of any significant contractual commitment between the dominant supplier and schools/LAs regarding the timeliness and quality of software provided
In line with this, Bromcom Computers Plc has recently brought a case against Capita to the Office of Fair Trading, alleging that Capita has been abusing its dominant position. Bromcom has stated that they used Becta’s 2005 report as the starting point of their complaint.[27]
Becta has made an official public statement in relation to this compliant, stating that, “We continue to receive reports that the market is not operating in an effective manner … Becta will review the existing information and where necessary commission additional research."[28]
A consultation on the functional requirements for information management (including MIS) closed on 30 September 2006. Over the consultation period of two months there were eleven comments submitted.
The functional requirements for information management was published on 9 October 2006.
Becta’s Circular to Local Authorities: School MIS and Value for Money
Becta has recently sent a circular informing all Directors of Children's Services in Local Authorities that serious concerns are continuing in relation to the marketplace for school Management Information Systems (MIS) and supplier provided support. They have identified that following the 2005 report a new independent review will now be commissioned.[29]
The circular highlights that in June 2005 the report identified concerns about the effective operation of the market that is associated with School Management Information Systems. The main concerns included considerable impediments to the exercise of effective choice by schools, substantial increases in licensing costs of products from the dominant supplier (Capita), as well as issues around the timelines and quality of Management Information Software.[30]
Becta accepts that whilst some progress has been made since 2005 in some areas cause for concern still remains. The present and general approach adopted by some Local Authorities in procuring for their MIS and associated software in line with their legal obligations under EU procurement regulations is a cause for concern, thus Becta is commissioning a follow up investigation and independent review.
In essence the circular highlighting the need for assessing ‘value for money’ in making choices rather than simply buying from the incumbent/dominant MIS supplier (Capita) without appropriate evaluation / market-testing. Becta proposes to undertake a study on behalf of Local Authorities for this purpose.
It is indicated in the circular that Becta hopes to have the result of its review and be able to advice Local Authorities by the beginning of the new financial year in April 2010.[29]
School MIS and value for money report 2010
The Becta report has was published with strong recommendations proposed ″Recommendation 1 – Each local authority should urgently conduct a review to determine if the specific arrangements they have put in place for the supply and on-going maintenance of school MIS systems are in accordance with the law. This recognises that the Market Study identified a significant number of MIS procurement activities which are potentially non-compliant with EU and UK procurement law (Paragraphs 1.14 to 1.21)″
The self-review framework is a free, online tool created by Becta and its partners that schools can use to assess and benchmark their use of ICT across all their activities.
It enables schools to identify where they are and shows the practical steps they can take to gain even greater benefit from their use of ICT.
In many areas, it complements the work schools currently undertake for Ofsted and can be provided as evidence for a school’s Self Evaluation Framework (SEF).
The self-review framework offers schools a route to achieving the ICT Mark, which is a nationally recognised accreditation scheme which gives schools recognition for their achievements in reaching a standard of maturity in their use of technology.
The Curriculum Online website, managed by Becta since January 2005, gave teaching professionals access to digital learning resources that could be bought using e-learning credits (eLCs).
The website is now closed because ring-fenced funding via eLCs ceased at the end of August 2008.
In May 2005 Becta published a report[31] of eight case studies where Open Source software was deployed in Schools on servers and in the classroom, often mixed with Microsoft products. The conclusions were positive and the considerable savings in cost were noted.[32]
Becta encourage the increasing use of Open Source software in schools and fund the Open Source Schools community.
In spite of this experience, Becta's infrastructure framework for suppliers to schools outlined above has been accused of excluding open source systems by its choice of companies.[33]
A long predicted issue has arisen over the ability of the proprietary software supplied with the many Interactive Whiteboard systems to inter-operate. In a press release, Becta states:
| “ | To tackle this problem Becta has appointed Research Machines to develop a common industry-wide standard that will bring huge benefits to schools, allowing the exchange of resources within and between schools.
The aim of this development is to provide the industry with an interoperability standard, followed by demonstration of support for the format with the production of an open-source file viewer. Becta will support the development of the specification and, by devising the interoperability file format to support certain agreed file features common to interactive whiteboards, work to obtain whiteboard vendors commitment to support the standard.[34] |
” |
In January 2008, Becta was accused of excessive political correctness when it eliminated a children's interactive CD-ROM story book called The Three Little Cowboy Builders (based on Three Little Pigs) from an educational awards ceremony on the grounds that it could be considered offensive to builders and Muslims.[35][36][37] Becta subsequently claimed that the independent judges (teachers) had rejected the story because it "failed to reach the required standard across a number of criteria" and was "not sufficiently convincing on curriculum and innovation grounds to be shortlisted",[38] although Curriculum Online (a website run by Becta) had previously given the book an enthusiastic thumbs-up.[39]