By Tom Espiner, 16 January 2006 09:00
NEWS
Schools do not get good value for money from current Microsoft licensing agreements, IT professionals in the education sector claimed this week.
In a series of interviews with education professionals at the Bett educational technology show in London, silicon.com sister site, ZDNet UK, found broad consensus that Microsoft educational licensing agreements are too expensive.
Michael Allen, ICT technician of Swanmore College of Technology, said: "A lot of schools are looking at open source - budgets come into play here. Microsoft licensing takes a big chunk out of schools budgets. The biggest issue is cost, basically."
Microsoft educational licensing agreements fall into two categories: perpetual agreements, where schools buy software outright; and schools agreements (also known as annuities), where schools buy and renew contracts.
The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) is currently reviewing whether Microsoft licensing agreements represent value for money for schools. Preliminary results are due in June.
Andrew Coates, IT technician at Fernhurst Junior School, Portsmouth, said: "[Microsoft's licensing] is too expensive. It should be a damn sight cheaper. After the Becta review, Microsoft might reassess pricing. There should be at least a 50 per cent reduction in price, I think."
Darren Smith, network manager at Mayfield School, Portsmouth, expressed similar misgivings: "The schools agreement is cheaper for us [compared with buying individual upgrades] but it's still overpriced.
"We're teaching the kids to use Microsoft software, so in effect we're doing Microsoft a favour. All of these kids are potential Microsoft customers - the pricing should reflect this."
An educational IT consultant, who did not wish to be named, believes that Becta's investigation is needed. "Does Microsoft licensing represent value for money? Well, everyone knows it's too expensive."
Ben Morgan, head of computer education for United World College in Singapore, explained he doesn't use the school's agreements at all: "We tend to buy machines with Windows and Office pre-installed, as schools agreements don't represent value for money for us.
"The schools agreement is only economical in particular circumstances - you have to be pretty sure you run all of the upgrades. If you're not using an up-to-date version of Windows, it's not worth the cost. And if you choose to opt out of a schools agreement, you can't use the software."
Microsoft denied its licensing did not represent value for money.
Stephen Uden, head of citizenship, programmes and relationships at Microsoft Education UK, said: "Good value? If you have a good product, and spend money on research and development, then costs reflect that. It's not an unreasonable price and customers still have a choice. I think it's cracking value."
Uden said Microsoft 's business customers were already irked by the level of discount given to schools: "It's not charitable but we do sell at a 75 per cent discount compared with businesses. We get earache from commercial customers who buy in huge volumes."
Uden also defended Microsoft in the light of the Becta review.
He said: "The key thing is, we give people a choice. I disagree that schools agreements lock people in. You do have a choice - you can get a perpetual licence if you don't want a schools agreement, or you can choose to buy a competitors' product.
"Most of the big money is spent [by schools] on hardware, and it costs us money to develop software."
A spokesman for Apple would not comment on whether Microsoft represented value for money but said that Apple did.
David Millar, UK corporate relations manager for Apple, said: "With iLife, schools can buy an up-to-date program and get upgrades at a very minimal cost. If you look at our philosophy, when you buy a Mac it comes fully loaded with iLife. Podcasting, video and music editing comes free, and it interoperates with Office for the rest of your life."
Another Apple employee added that schools can get good value for money from small software developers.
He said: "Small software developers have some really fun programs coming out - and they have the same philosophy as Apple. People aren't there to be ripped off."
Tom Espiner writes for ZDNet UK
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Seems to me Microsoft can't win whatever it does. Give the software away - it gets accused of monpolistic practices and trying to indoctrinate children.
Sell the software to schools at a 75% reduction - schools say this is too expensive, while private sector clients complain.
I would want my children to be taught in schools usinmg the most common packages used in industry. And whatever else you think of Microsoft, let's face it folks, Microsoft Office is most widely used across all industries.
I don't work for Microsoft. Schools should be given appropriate budgets to afford to buy decent technology. And teachers should be paid more. And classrooms should be smaller......
2. Richard
Schools should teach generic skills:
We should put an end to statements such as: "We're teaching the kids to use Microsoft software ..."
Schools should be teaching how and when to use a PC, wordprocessor or spreadsheet etc., rather than which button to press on a particular version of MS Office.
That way children will be better able to cope with any similar product in the workplace.
For most purposes, any modern product is suitable, including (free) Open Office, Sun's Star Office, Coral, Lotus, etc. etc.
Provided that people learn confidence and understand the principles, they can cope easily with any minor differences between products or versions.
3. Tim Jackson
Schools should not be enforcing Microsoft's monopoly. Teaching the "industry standard" is not an excuse.
Last time I was involved with IT teaching they were teaching the "industry standard" - Word Perfect 5! Whatever happened to that and all its wrist-breaking keycodes. By the time the students graduated it was long forgotten and memorising all the function keys was useless.
Let's hope the same applies to Microsoft Office. There is no reason for schools to go along with Microsoft's "Apres nous, le delulge" attitide.
Schools should teach the principles, not the products.
4. James Button
Isn't it anti-competative, to make it cheaper for schools to teach students to use MS software, without teaching them to use SUN, Be, Linux etc.
5. James Button
Isn't it anti-competative, to make it cheaper for schools to teach students to use MS software, without teaching them to use SUN, Be, Linux etc.
6. Graham Bingham
Stop moaning, what do you want, MS to give it away? Having moved from the commercial world to education MS software is dirt cheap and readilly available. Education seems to expect to get everything for nothing with minimal effort in many areas. Lets get on with it and teach, there is way too much interferance from governments and read tape and far too much time is spend on investigations such as these