open source software in schools a study of the spectrum of use … · 2015-07-29 · open source...

Open Source Software in SchoolsA study of the spectrum of use and related ICT infrastructure costs

Project report

May 2005

This report records work that Becta has done with schools whichhave implemented a range of open source software (OSS)solutions. This project, funded by the DfES, was one of aninterrelated series, all looking at ways of helping schools makeeffective and sustainable use of ICT by exploring the total costof ownership (TCO) of their ICT infrastructure.

The project started with a pre-existing set of 33 non-OSSprimary and secondary schools that had agreed to take part inmore general TCO work. Becta used existing OSS contacts andwebsites to identify a number of additional schools that werealready using OSS, and invited them to take part in the project.Fifteen of these schools agreed to participate within theproject timescales.

While both sets contained a range of schools in a variety ofsettings, they were not selected to be matched sets or to bemore widely representative, and four schools were members ofa mutually supportive cluster. They therefore representopportunity samples.

The details of the OSS schools' ICT-related expenditure werecompared with those of schools that are not using suchsoftware. Further contextual information from eight casestudy schools is also provided, and explores the nature of therange of implementations, the effect the choice ofimplementation may have on cost, and how staff and pupilsfeel about using OSS.

The project has produced three related publications:

• The project report, which outlines the use of open sourcesoftware in the project schools and related infrastructure costs

• A case study report containing details of how eight of theschools in the project implemented open source solutions

• An information sheet summarising the findings of the project.

All three publications can be ordered or downloaded from theBecta website [http://www.becta.org.uk/publications].

ContentsExecutive summary 4

Introduction 6

Project context 6

Methodology 6

Open source software: a multi-level innovation 7

Profiles of OSS use 7

Effectiveness of open source software 8

Impact on curriculum delivery 8

Management and administration 9

Technical infrastructure 9

Relative costs 10

Data collection 10

The total cost of OSS ownership 10

Comparison of costs for OSS and non-OSS schools 12

Relative support costs 12

The way forward 14

Cost-effective models of support in OSS schools 14

Best practice in the use of open source licensing solutions 15

Successful implementation of OSS 15

Using OSS to run the school's servers and provide school-wide facilities 16

Using OSS to provide the operating systems for classroom and administrative PCs 17

Using OSS applications on classroom and administrative PCs 17

Conclusions 18

References 19

Appendices 20

Appendix 1: Data collection and analysis 20

Appendix 2: The open source software packages available in project schools 20

Appendix 3: Summary of the total cost of ownership (TCO) by school phase

and availability or non-availability of OSS 22

Executive summary This project had three aims:

• To examine how well the open source software (OSS) approach works,compared with proprietary offerings, in supporting delivery of theschool curriculum and administration, and the effectiveness of OSS toprovide adequate functionality to the educational user.

• To compare the total cost of ownership (TCO) of using OSS within schoolenvironments against that of non-open-source solutions.This includes thepotential hidden support costs associated with using all types of software.

• To highlight examples of successful school-based open sourceimplementations and produce case studies.

The TCO profiles of an opportunity sample of 15 OSS and 33 non-OSS schoolswere compared, and case studies of eight of the OSS schools were produced.

How OSS solutions were introducedSchools introduced OSS solutions in three ways. They used them to:

• ∑run the school’s servers and provide school-wide services such asinternet access

∑ • provide the operating systems for classroom and/or administrative

computers

• provide applications software for classroom and/or administrativecomputers.

It is important to distinguish between the different kinds of use as they oftenrequire different OSS products and provide different mixes of costs andbenefits to different groups within the school.The use of OSS varied from fullspectrum – more than the threshold value of 30% use of OSS on servers, PCsand the use of educational applications – through to narrow spectrum useof applications such as StarOffice1 and OpenOffice in the classroom.

Use of OSS in the curriculumOur findings show that OSS can provide a suitable technicalinfrastructure and a basic set of applications for classroom use.

Overall, the project schools had 20–30 OSS programs relevant to thecurriculum, nearly all of which were open-ended applications such asgraphics and music composition packages, rather than content-specificprograms. There was a perception that open source productivity softwarewas easier or simpler to use than the non-OSS equivalents.

Technical infrastructure and school administration systemsTechnical infrastructure was well supported with around 27 packages beingused. Surveys of staff satisfaction with the reliability and performance ofICT equipment and with ICT facilities and services show that satisfactionwas higher for OSS schools overall, especially in the primary school sector.

We did not encounter any use of OSS to support whole-schooladministration and management. Incompatibility with other morespecialised administrative packages was sometimes given as the reasonfor this.

Relative total costsWe have measured seven main elements in the total cost of ownershipfor both non-OSS and OSS schools using Becta’s Total Cost of OwnershipModel (see Appendix 1). Cost data for a three-year period was collated forhardware, software, network, consumables, training, formal support (bothinternally funded or bought in) and informal support (ie the equivalentcost of personal time spent on support or technical self-help). Forcomparison purposes, the average annual cost per PC has been taken asthe most important measure to use, as several costs (eg consumables,software, peripherals and support) are primarily related to the number ofPCs available.

The study indicates that:∑ • the annual total cost per PC was less for nearly all the OSS schools at

both primary and secondary school levels. For OSS schools, cost per PCat primary school level was half that of non-OSS schools, and cost perPC at secondary school level was around 20% less than that of thenon-OSS schools.

∑ • the case studies show lower relative costs for OSS, with savings beingmainly used on ICT-related improvements. The potential cost savingsdepend a great deal on the way a school implements the OSS solutions.

Relative support costs and trainingProportionally, support costs accounted for about 60% of the totalannual cost per PC in both OSS and non-OSS schools. Annual supportcosts in individual OSS schools varied widely, but on average were50–60% of those of their non-OSS counterparts, except OSS secondaryschools which had slightly higher costs for informal support.

The varying support costs between OSS schools are closely related to thepurpose and type of OSS implementation chosen by a school and thepurposes for which OSS is being used. The most cost-effective supportlevel and the kind of support required will vary accordingly.

Expenditure on training across all four sets of schools was low. This couldpartly explain the high support costs; perhaps more or better trainingcould reduce the need for this.

Teachers in the OSS schools view their own skills and confidence in usingICT much more positively than the teachers in the non-OSS schools do,and lower levels of training could therefore be expected.

Project report

1StarOffice is not ‘open source’ in the true sense of the definition, but it is considered part ofthis category as it is an inexpensive alternative, and has a number of open source components.

4

Our findings show that open source software can provide a suitable technical infrastructure

and a basic set of applications for classroom use.

Models of supportWe compared formal and informal support (self-support) costs to thetotal cost per PC in each of the case study schools, identifying keydifferences by looking at extreme cases of ICT investment. These keydifferences suggested that the most cost-effective model for ICT supportresponds to cycles of innovation, because the demand for support andthe kind of support required will fluctuate according to amount of ICTinvestment and the way new ICT is introduced into the school.

Cost advantages in the use of OSS solutionsThe case for using OSS rests largely on the cost advantage, with costsavings, as distinct from cost cutting, achieved through the introductionof OSS.

It is important to adopt a strategic approach to financial planning inwhich any savings are then allocated to best meet the wider educationalaims of the school.

Successful school-based use of OSS solutionsIn order to link our findings to the wider setting of English schools as awhole, the study explored five characteristics of innovations that arelikely to affect the speed at which OSS solutions are likely to be taken upby schools.

In our study of OSS in schools we identified the use of OSS in thefollowing areas:

Technical infrastructure• The use of open source operating systems for servers was generally seen

as having a high level of relative advantage, having lower costs, superiorreliability and greater ease of use than non-open-source systems.

• Linux on PCs took up less memory, increasing speed and allowing thecontinued use of older and more limited machines without any lossof performance.

∑• Dual-platform PCs, which allow users to switch between open source andnon-open-source operating systems and applications, had a number ofrelative advantages over those running only an open source system. Thissolution gave users the opportunity to try new facilities, but, by providingboth operating systems, overall cost savings were reduced. open-source-only PCs have a slower take-up, probably because of unfamiliarity withthe desktop, and reluctance to use non-proprietary software.

Administration and management• There were clearly divergent views on the relative advantages of OSS

and non-OSS applications, with administrators generally undecided orlukewarm about their use, and pupils and teachers divided on theirrelative merits.

∑• The concerns of administrators and senior staff centred on lack ofcompatibility with other administrative packages, on training issuesand the previous experience of administrators.

Curriculum software• The range of content-specific OSS used was very small.

∑• The use of OSS by some teaching staff was often not apparent toothers, possibly working in different rooms, unless there was an activepolicy within and between schools of discussing, encouraging andsupporting its use.

∑• Another possible barrier to take-up was the fact that many teachingstaff were unaware that software they were using was OSS, andtherefore might not specifically look for other OSS resources.

Conclusions• ∑Our study indicates that OSS can be implemented successfully as a

networking solution within the technical infrastructure and withobvious cost benefits.

• The use of office-based OSS such as StarOffice and OpenOffice offersa cost-effective alternative to proprietary office software.

• The lack of curriculum OSS and the real or perceived incompatibilitywith proprietary systems are obstacles to a more general introductionof OSS applications and content-specific software for classroom use.However, dual-platform PCs which contain both open source andproprietary systems could avoid problems with interoperability inadministration, management and some curriculum applications. Forthese systems, however, there may be reduced or no cost savings.

• Whether or not migration to OSS is the best option for a school willvary from case to case. It is something that would need carefulplanning and discussion within the school. The potential cost benefitsand savings clearly make it an option worth serious consideration. Cost,however, is not the only factor. The culture within the school and thecontext in which changes are introduced are crucially important factorsto be taken into account.

Open source software in schools: a study of the spectrum of use and related ICT infrastructure costs

5

Project report

IntroductionOpen source software has been defined byBecta as:

‘software for which the underlyingprogramming code is available to theusers so that they may read it, makechanges to it, and build new versions ofthe software incorporating theirchanges. There are many types of opensource software, mainly differing in thelicensing term under which alteredcopies of the source code may beredistributed.’

The potential for OSS to make a significantcontribution within the public sector has beenexplored in a number of UK Governmentpublications (Briggs and Peck, 2003; Office ofthe e-Envoy, 2002; Office of GovernmentCommerce, 2002; Office of GovernmentCommerce, 2004). This series included a reporton trials of OSS in the public sector. Itconcluded that:

‘Open source software is a viable andcredible alternative to proprietarysoftware for infrastructure implemen-tations, and for meeting therequirements of the majority ofdesktop users.

The main obstacles to widespreadimplementation of open sourcesoftware are: for desktop applications,the current lack of complexfunctionality which can affect ease ofmigration and interoperability for someorganisations; and for businessapplications, the lack of open sourceproducts to compete with large-scaleproprietary enterprise-level products; nosignificant obstacles were noted for theadoption of open source ininfrastructure developments.

Adoption of open source software cangenerate significant savings inhardware and software costs forinfrastructure implementation, andreduce the licensing costs andhardware refresh requirements fordesktop implementation.

Adoption of open source, particularly forthe desktop, requires investment inplanning, training of users, developmentof skills for implementation andsupport, and detailed consideration ofmigration and interoperability issues.’

Office of Government Commerce (2004)

The present project is, therefore, a moredetailed evaluation of the use of OSS to seehow far the general conclusions above applywithin the school context.

Project context The aims of the project were to:

• examine how well the open source approachworks in practice in supporting delivery ofthe curriculum and administrativemanagement in schools, and the degree towhich OSS currently in use is effective andprovides adequate functionality to theeducational user

• compare the TCO of using OSS (includingthe potential hidden costs associated withusing any software) within schoolenvironments against that of non-OSSsolutions

• highlight examples of successful school-based OSS implementations and producecase studies.

MethodologyThe project started with a pre-existing set of33 non-OSS primary and secondary schoolsthat had agreed to take part in more generalwork to investigate the TCO. Becta usedexisting OSS contacts and websites toidentify a number of additional schools thatwere already using OSS, and invited them totake part in the project. Fifteen of these

schools agreed to participate. While both theOSS and non-OSS groups contained a rangeof schools in a variety of settings, they werenot selected to be matched sets or to bemore widely representative, and four schoolswere members of a single mutuallysupportive cluster. The schools selectedtherefore represent opportunity samples.Eight of the OSS schools were chosen for casestudies to explore the context andperceptions of OSS in those schools. Detailsof these schools are given in ‘Open sourcesoftware in schools: a case study report’(Becta, 2005).

Becta built upon existing work on developing amethodology for assessing the TCO of ICT ineducation. A specially developed tool helpedschools assess both the visible costs andhidden costs associated with ICT investmentand use. The approach considered a range ofoutput measures designed to help identify themost cost-effective approach, rather thansimply the lowest cost solution.

The details of the OSS schools’ ICT-relatedexpenditure were compared with those ofschools that were not using such software.Further contextual information from eight casestudy schools is also provided, and explores thenature of the range of implementations, theeffect that the choice of implementation mayhave on cost, and how staff and pupils feelabout using OSS.

In addition, a survey of staff was carried out togather information about their satisfactionwith and their perception of the reliability ofICT facilities and services. The survey alsocollated their views of their own skills and training.

Appendix 1 describes how the data wasanalysed.

6

The availability of open source software provides students with a wider view of operating systems and software.

Open source software: amulti-level innovation Our study observed that OSS can be introducedat three different levels in schools, to:

• run the school’s servers and provide school-wide services such as internet access

• provide the operating systems for classroomand/or administrative computers

• provide applications software for classroomand/or administrative computers.

It is important to distinguish these levels, notonly because they largely use different kinds ofsoftware, but also because they providedifferent mixes of benefits and costs todifferent groups within the school.

OSS can be introduced in any combination ofthese three levels, and there is no technicalreason why, for example, all of a school’sservers need to run the same system. They aretherefore essentially three different potentialinnovations rather than one.

Profiles of OSS use In the event, the project schools showedconsiderable differences in the distribution of,and weight given to, OSS at each of these threelevels (Table 1).

The table below shows that:

• only five of the schools were full-spectrumOSS users, covering all three levels withsubstantial (more than the threshold valueof 30% use) OSS availability for servers, PCsand laptops and applications

• five schools had a substantial OSS provisionat only one of the three levels

• the percentage of OSS provision within alevel varied considerably from school toschool, but there was a strong tendency tohave 0 or 100% provision

• four of these schools formed a cluster –three primary schools were supported by asecondary school.

It should also be noted that four of the eightcase study schools were in the ‘full spectrum’group, and only one of the other four had a lowlevel of OSS provision.This meant that the casestudies gave us a good picture of what wemight assume to be the schools mostcommitted to using OSS. It also indicated thatthese cases may be giving an over-positivepicture of the responses of the project teachersoverall to OSS.

7

Open source software

can be implemented

successfully as

a networking solution

within the technical

infrastructure.


Open source operatingsystems (% use)

Open sourceapplications (% use)

School

A*B*CDE*F*G*H*I*JKLMNO*

PrPrSecSecSecSecPrSecSecSecSecSecPrPrPr

100%100%

66%63%60%

100%100%

86%70%33%80%75%33%

0%0%

100%100%

80%100%

33%20%

0%20%

0%20%

0%1%0%0%0%

100%100%

0%0%0%

100%100%

0%0%0%0%0%0%

100%75%

0%0%

90%100%100%

10%0%

90%100%

70%0%

15%0%2%2%

Full spectrumFull spectrumFull spectrumFull spectrumFull spectrum

Server plus applicationsServer plus applicationsServer plus applicationsServer plus applicationsServer plus applications

Server onlyServer onlyServer only

Applications onlyApplications only

Category Phase Server PC StarOffice OpenOffice

Table 1: Distribution of OSS provision across levels in the project schools* Indicates the school was also used as a case study

Effectiveness of open sourcesoftwareTeachers and pupils are the two main groups ofeducational users of ICT, so what do theyexpect OSS to do for them? Arguably theirthree main requirements are that OSSprovides:

• support for curriculum delivery through a fullset of basic applications and content-specificsoftware across the curriculum

• support for school-level administration andmanagement

• a technical infrastructure for the school thatenables the delivery of the curriculum.

In the next three sections we examine each ofthese areas in turn.

Impact on curriculum deliveryBetween them, the 15 project schools hadaround 50 different software programs(Appendix 2), if application suites such asStarOffice and OpenOffice were viewed asincluding several programs. Around half ofthese were relevant to the curriculum and weregenerally open-ended applications, such asgraphics and music composition packages,rather than content-specific programs. Thismay reflect the wider usability of the OSSapplication packages, making them the obviousones to start with, or perhaps an emphasiswithin the open source community on processrather than content.

The perceived lack of curriculum-specific OSScompared with proprietary products can becountered by the availability of internet-basedopen source content which is freely available toteachers and pupils via OSS browsers.

Within the OSS applications, the two officesuites (the relatively low-cost StarOffice andthe free OpenOffice) have a particularimportance. They include the basicapplications: word processing, spreadsheet,presentation, drawing and (in the case ofStarOffice) a database. These can be used bothby teachers and by pupils, and there were manyreferences to them in the case studies.

In general the view appeared to be that theseopen source office applications were easier orsimpler to use than the non-OSS equivalents.As one teacher put it:

“I think it is more straightforward for alearner. That’s certainly the feedback Iam getting from the Year 6 children.Thatit’s simpler. One of the examples one ofthe children gave me was of importing apicture or a photograph from theinternet. She used StarOffice becauseshe said it was easier than doing itthrough other packages.”

The attitudes of teachers were also seen asvery important. One primary school teachernoted that StarOffice had been introduced bythe head teacher who:

“did a staff meeting showing everyonehow to use it. I think there was the oddcomment, that it seemed simpler thanMicrosoft Word and there are adults inthe school that think it is easier thanWord and that’s it’s better for children,but there are others who just dismissedit, who’ve thought ‘No, I know Word andthat is what I am sticking with.’ It’s beenquite a mixed reception.”

This emphasises that having OSS applicationsavailable does not necessarily mean they willbe used. For example, a respondent in onesecondary school with an open source officeapplications package on all its PCs estimatedthat this was used only for between 5 and 10%of the time in preference to the non-OSSalternative, which was also universallyavailable. Similarly, in one secondary school,staff laptops all had OSS applications installed,but the researcher found no evidence that theteachers were aware of this.

Project report

8

The reported views of one teacher in anothersecondary school illustrate some of theconfusion which may lie behind this:

“[He] is not a fan of StarOffice – goingso far as to describe it as ‘the bane of mylife’. He prepares all his lessons onMicrosoft Office and teaches entirelythrough the computer. He’s a bigPowerPoint user and finds that thingsdon’t translate easily to StarOffice. Hedoesn’t want StarOffice on his ownlaptop because, he says ‘I’ve seen it andit takes over.’ He suspects that students,who bring in their work as hard copy, useMicrosoft Office at home. In spite of allthis, however, he says that studentsseem happy with StarOffice and that itprobably is not impacting on attainmentlevels. In spite of the ‘inconvenience’ ofStarOffice, he feels it is probably worthit for the savings – in order to put morehardware into the school.”

Other staff viewed the availability of both OSSand non-OSS as a positive advantage ratherthan a problem. One primary school headteacher had no particular feelings about OSSherself, but observed that:

“It’s nice to have both. [Our teachingassistant] tends to use StarOffice forstraight text processing but likes to useMicrosoft’s WordArt facility for preparingdisplay materials.What she uses dependson just what she wants to do.”

Interestingly the member of staff shementioned, although of course well aware ofthe differences between the two packages, wasnot aware of ‘open source’ as a term, or of Linux.

This willingness to ‘mix and match’ was alsomentioned by the head teacher in the casestudy report on another primary school:

“Children don’t seem to care if they haveWord at home, or StarOffice. At schoolthey have never complained about whichthey use. No one has said to me, ‘Oh, wehaven’t got that at home’; it’stransferable skills that count. However,some pupils have commented that Wordis faster than StarOffice, and that thetoolbar is easier to read on Word.”

Finally, there were two indications that OSS wasalso valued in some cases for its more generaleducational significance. In one secondaryschool, the OSS philosophy was seen as resonantwith that of the school’s specialist engineeringstatus. In another, the ICT co-ordinator saw theavailability of OSS as providing students with awider view of operating systems and software.

Management and administrationManagement and administration software is apart of school ICT. None of the schools in oursample used OSS for these purposes. As far aswe are aware, there are no specialist OSSpackages available for management andadministration in the UK, although some areunder development elsewhere (ShuttleworthFoundation, 2004). It would have been possible

for schools, nevertheless, to use relevant genericOSS applications such as word processors andspreadsheets. These were widely available in allbut three of the project schools.

The decision not to use OSS applications formanagement and administration wassometimes linked with the administrator alsoneeding to use specialised packages that werenot OSS-compatible. In one full-spectrumschool, for example, the administrator hadbeen trained on, and was very used to,Microsoft Office, and doubted if StarOfficewould be compatible with other packages.

Technical infrastructureBetween them, the schools reported 27different software packages available tosupport the technical infrastructure.There wereno indications that ICT managers in any of theschools thought that this range, or the qualityof the OSS, was inadequate.

For staff as a whole, the survey collectedinformation on two areas of staff satisfaction:their view on reliability and performance of ICTequipment, and their satisfaction with ICTfacilities and services. The staff were generallysatisfied with the reliability and performance ofequipment, with all the OSS schools exceptone rating this as ‘OK’ or above. The results fornon-OSS schools were similar. Schools’ viewson ICT facilities and services were much moremixed, but satisfaction was higher among theOSS schools overall, especially in the primaryschool sector.

9

In general the view appeared to be that

these open source software applications

were as easy to use as the non-open

source software equivalents.


Project report

10

Relative costsData collectionThere are a number of ways in which TCO canbe calculated (Scrimshaw, 2002). The tool thatthe project team used was designed to identifyseven main elements of the TCO, namely:

• ∑hardware• software• network∑• consumables• training• formal support (both internally funded and

bought in)• informal/self-support (ie the equivalent cost

of personal time spent on support ortechnical self-help).

The cost data we gathered from project schoolscovered a three-year period and complementedthe results of the user survey to provide annualTCO figures per PC and per student. In addition,various other very detailed analyses werecarried out of, for example, the software costsper PC for different categories of software.These were also compared with equivalentfigures from the set of 33 non-OSS schools.Appendix 3 provides a general summary ofthese figures.

Comparisons between these OSS and non-OSScosts are given below, but have to be viewedwith caution for three reasons. Firstly, thedetailed figures show considerable costvariations between the OSS schools. Given thevery small number of schools involved, thismeans that had the team replaced one OSSschool with another, it could have producedsubstantially different figures overall.

Secondly, there are indications in the data thatthe OSS schools were, as a group, different fromthe non-OSS schools, which suggest that we arenot dealing with equivalent sets of schools.

Finally, as shown earlier, the OSS schools inmany cases had quite limited OSS provision(and actual use was sometimes reported to bemuch less still). We are therefore not lookingat ‘non-OSS’ and ‘all OSS’ schools, but atschools ranging across the full spectrum ofOSS provision from 0 to 100%. At best, then,these general comparisons of the sets of OSSand non-OSS schools give very limitedindications of what relative costs are likely tobe more generally.

The total cost of OSS ownership In most of the analysis that follows, theaverage annual cost per PC is taken as the mostimportant figure to use. This is because severalcosts (such as for consumables, software,peripherals and some kinds of support) arefairly directly related to the number of PCsavailable. Figure 1 below shows an overallcomparison of the total costs per PC (brokendown into the categories listed) for all the OSSschools in the study (primary = P1–P6,secondary = S1–S9) compared to those ofnon-OSS schools.

For staff as a whole, the survey collected

information on two areas of staff satisfaction:

their view on reliability and performance of ICT equipment,

and their satisfaction with ICT facilities

and services.

TCO per PC (£ per year)

Figure 1: Annual TCO per PC for OSS primary and secondary schools

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

0

TCO

per

PC

(£)

200

Avera

ge O

SS*A

LL*

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS*A

LL*

Avera

ge O

SS Pr

imary

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS Pr

imary

Avera

ge O

SS Se

cond

ary

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS Se

cond

ary

Self-supportFormal SupportUser TrainingConsumablesNetworkSoftwareHardware

11


The distribution of costs, as a percentage ofthe total, for OSS primary schools is shown inFigure 2 and Table 2 below.

The annual TCO for OSS secondary schools isgiven in Figure 3 and Table 3 below.

The cost data we gathered from

project schools covered a

three-year period and

complemented the results of

the user survey to provide

annual TCO figures per PC

and per student.

Figure 2: Annual TCO per PC for OSS primary schools

Figure 3: Annual TCO per PC for OSS secondary schools

Table 2: Annual TCO per PC for OSSprimary schools

Cost category

Hardware

Software

Network

Consumables

Training

Formal support

Self-support

Cost per PC (£)

131.71

44.68

14.11

21.89

57.50

273.17

148.86

691.92

%

19

6

2

3

8

40

22

Cost category

Hardware

Software

Network

Consumables

Training

Formal support

Self-support

Cost per PC (£)

151.93

32.56

61.58

24.21

27.04

206.61

283.39

787.32

%

19

4

8

3

3

26

37

Table 3: Annual TCO per PC for OSSsecondary schools

Hardware19%

Software6%

Network2%

Consumables3%

Training8%

Formal support40%

Self-support22%

Hardware19%

Software4%

Network8%

Consumables3%

Training3%

Formal support26%

Self-support37%

HardwareSoftwareNetworkConsumablesTrainingFormal supportSelf-support

HardwareSoftwareNetworkConsumablesTrainingFormal supportSelf-support

Project report

12

Comparison of costs for OSS and non-OSSschoolsFigure 4 and Table 4 below show the costs ofOSS schools as a percentage of the costs in non-OSS schools. The percentage distributions of

total costs between the categories are roughlysimilar for both the 15 OSS and the 33 non-OSSschools. However, in absolute terms, the costsare nearly all less for the OSS schools.This is trueboth for the primary and secondary school sets.

If the full-spectrum OSS schools arecompared with the remaining OSS schools,they tend to have lower TCOs per PC, againsuggesting that OSS costs are generally less.However, this is clearer with primary thanwith secondary schools.

The same feature of lower relative costs for OSSalso emerges from the case studies. Six of theeight case study schools gave cost savings astheir main reason for introducing OSS, and six ofthe eight later reported that such savings had infact been achieved. In one case the money hadbeen used to pay a part-time ICT teachingassistant; in another it had been used to improvethe pupil:computer ratio and provide extratechnical support.As the ICT co-ordinator put it:

“If I moved anywhere else […] I’dimplement OSS because the financialsavings are considerable and thisreleases more resources to tacklesuccessful implementation.”

In order to achieve flexibility, and for schools torun their chosen software, some needed dual-platform systems with both open source andnon-open-source operating systems, whichsignificantly reduced the cost savings.

When savings are made in an OSS school, thequestion arises of who ‘owns’ the savings. Threeschools specified how these savings were spent:in all three, the money went back into ICT-related improvements. This could well be thebest policy in many situations, but the decisionwould naturally depend on individual schoolmanagement.

Relative support costsSupport costs made up about 60% of total costin both the primary and secondary school sets,for both OSS and non-OSS schools.

The costs of support in OSS schools weregenerally around 50–60% of the equivalentnon-OSS support costs, except for self-supportin secondary schools, where the OSS schoolshad slightly higher costs. (See Figure 5.)

Annual TCO per PC (£)

Hardware

Software

Network

Consumables

Training

Formal support

Self-support

TOTAL

280.53

64.14

66.94

53.13

53.31

406.16

303.83

1228.04

151.93

32.56

61.58

24.21

27.04

206.61

283.39

787.32

221.88

67.10

56.76

28.33

11.53

385.62

264.48

1035.70

47

70

21

41

108

67

49

56

68

49

108

85

235

54

107

76

Non-OSSprimary

131.71

44.68

14.11

21.89

57.50

273.17

148.86

691.92

OSSprimary

OSSsecondary

Non-OSSsecondary

OSS as %non-OSSprimary

OSS as %non-OSS

secondary

Figure 4: OSS schools' costs as a percentage of non-OSS schools’ costs for primary and secondaryschools

Table 4: Comparative TCO per PC for OSS and non-OSS schools, by cost category for primary andsecondary schools

Figure 5: Average annual support costs

250

200

150

100

0

% O

SS t

o no

n-O

SS

50

Hardware Software Network Consumables Training Formal support

Self-support

OSS Primary Non-OSS Primary OSS Secondary Non-OSS Secondary

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

0

100

£ pe

r ye

ar

PrimarySecondary

Self-supportPurchased SupportStaff Resources for Formal Support

13


The very low figures for training across all foursets of schools are also notable. (See Figure 6.)This may partly explain the high support costs;perhaps more or better training could reduce theneed for support.

Teachers in the OSS schools perceived their ICTskills much more positively than the teachers inthe non-OSS schools did. The same was true fortheir perceptions of their confidence in usingICT. It is possible that the OSS teachers are moreexperienced and confident with ICT than theirnon-OSS colleagues. If so, lower levels oftraining could be expected, as training would beseen as less necessary. However, the non-OSSschools also had the same low proportion ofexpenditure on training per PC, so training doesnot appear to be related to teachers’ perceptionsof their ICT skills and their confidence.

Figures 7 and 8 show that all the OSS schoolsreported higher levels of teacher confidenceand ICT skills than the rest of their non-OSScolleagues.

Given that support costs form a very highproportion of total costs, a key questionconcerns the optimal balance between trainingteachers and supporting them. The related issueof what specific kinds of support and training areneeded is also important.

Figure 6: Training in the last two years

Figure 7: Staff self-assessment of ICT skills

Figure 8: Staff self-assessment of confidence in use of ICT

70

60

50

40

30

20

0

10

Tota

l tra

inin

g (h

ours

)


Avera

ge O

SS*A

LL*

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS*A

LL*

Avera

ge O

SS Pr

imary

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS Pr

imary

Avera

ge O

SS Se

cond

ary

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS Se

cond

ary


Avera

ge O

SS*A

LL*

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS*A

LL*

Avera

ge O

SS Pr

imary

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS Pr

imary

Avera

ge O

SS Se

cond

ary

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS Se

cond

ary


Avera

ge O

SS*A

LL*

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS*A

LL*

Avera

ge O

SS Pr

imary

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS Pr

imary

Avera

ge O

SS Se

cond

ary

Avera

ge N

on-O

SS Se

cond

ary

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

%

Self-

asse

ssm

ent

of IC

T sk

ills

10%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

%

Staf

f sel

f-as

sess

men

t of

ICT

conf

iden

ce

10%

100%

90%

CurriculumNon-Curr.

Very GoodGoodOKLowVery Low

Very GoodGoodOKLowVery Low

Project report

14

The way forward Cost-effective models of support in OSSschoolsWe might assume that the more cost-effectivesupport models were those where staffsatisfaction with ICT facilities and services washigh, but support costs per PC were relativelylow. On these measures, we can group theeight case study OSS schools into three broadcategories:

• Schools with relatively high staff satisfactionand relatively low support costs (onesecondary school, three primary schools inthe cluster – see below).

• Schools where both staff satisfaction andsupport costs were medium (two secondaryschools, one primary school).

• A secondary school where satisfaction wasmedium, but support costs were high.

If all schools are grouped into these threecategories, it can be seen that non-OSS schoolsgenerally had medium satisfaction and supportcosts. The exception is the non-OSS primaryschool average, which shows mediumsatisfaction and high support costs. Thissuggests that it is the first and third categoriesthat require further examination as they mayyield more pertinent information on differentsupport models.

The four high satisfaction/low cost schoolswere all members of the same cluster ofschools, which we will call the 'Evenlode'cluster. All four had all their servers runningunder OSS, and all their PCs ran OSSapplications. However, the schools variedgreatly in how many PCs had open sourceoperating systems available, and in theproportions of formal support and self-support. The Evenlode schools believed thatthe LEA did not support OSS, although it hadprovided generic funding and assisted theschools with non-OSS support.

Much of the drive to introduce OSS within thecluster came from the IT administrator in thesecondary school, who was an enthusiastic andknowledgeable advocate for OSS. He installedthe networks in all four schools, beginning with

the secondary school in 1999. By the end of theproject, the secondary school had two full-timestaff providing support not only to their ownschool, but also at a distance to their colleaguesin the three primary schools. Each of theseschools had a member of staff who was seen asessential to promoting and supporting OSS use.In one case this was an advanced teachingassistant, in another a school administrationofficer and in the third the head teacher waspersonally well informed and enthusiastic aboutOSS. Her interest was another factor in spreadingits use, because she introduced OSS into her firstcluster school and, on becoming head teacher ofa second school in the cluster, took OSS with her.Another important contributor was a Unixprogrammer who lived locally and wanted togive something back to the community. He gavehis services free of charge to the secondaryschool. When he later left the area he stillsupplied advice whenever required and, onoccasion, visited the secondary school. Thiscontribution has a notional value which has notbeen applied in this study due to the lack ofdetail relating to the programmer’s time andeffort and complexity of the support offered.

For some of the participants, it was clear thatOSS was chosen not only to save money, butbecause it was seen as embodying and helpingto implement a collaborative ethos. Oneshared objective of schools within the cluster isto provide all pupils with a single user ID andpassword which they may use at any of theEvenlode schools in the future.

A partially contrasting picture was provided byan OSS secondary school, which we will call‘Mornington’, outside the Evenlode cluster. Herestaff satisfaction was medium, but supportcosts were high. Staff satisfaction with ICTfacilities and support was quite similar to thatfor the secondary school in the Evenlodecluster. Both were ‘server plus applications’schools, with the Evenlode school having OSSon 100% of the servers, on 20% of the desktopPCs, and with 100% of the PCs with OSSapplications. Mornington had 70% of serverswith OSS, no desktop PCs running open sourceoperating systems, but 100% of them runningOSS applications. However, the schools differedin the proportion of user self-support, this beingaround one-third of all support in the Evenlode

school and around four-fifths in Mornington.Another major difference was that total supportcosts per PC for the Evenlode school werearound one-fifth of those for Mornington. Theschools also differed in size: Mornington hadaround three times as many pupils as the entireEvenlode cluster, which suggests that it shouldhave been achieving greater economies of scalethan the smaller cluster spread over four sites.

At first sight all this might suggest that supportin Mornington was far less cost-effective thanin the Evenlode schools. However, this assumesthat a simple cross-checking of support costper PC against staff satisfaction is a sufficientindicator of cost-effectiveness. It also assumesthat the best arrangement is for the ratio of thetwo to stay the same over time. However,when the two cases are looked at in moredetail a rather different picture emerges.

First, much of the introduction of OSS into theEvenlode schools took place between 1999 andthe first half of 2001, meaning that theinnovation was quite well bedded in at thetime that the data was collected. Although twoof the schools planned to introduce dataprojectors or interactive whiteboards, theoverall emphasis across the cluster was onbuilding on existing progress and maximisingthe benefits for pupils from what has alreadybeen achieved. The case study report for thesecondary school, for instance, records that:

‘The school aims to place the now-developed ICT infrastructure fully at theservice of teaching and learning.Increasingly, ICT will be central to allteaching and learning and the means bywhich they are made exciting. Now thatthe nuts and bolts are in place, thecreative use of the ICT is of majorimportance.

We shall use ICT increasingly tocommunicate with each other and, as thetechnology continues to become morereliable, we’ll become more reliant on it.’

The position in Mornington was ratherdifferent. The case study report shows that thisschool was at the time very active in a widerange of different kinds of ICT development:

15


‘The ICT facilities in school areexceptional and amongst the mostcomprehensive in any school [a new ICT-based learning facility was opened in2002] and plans are in hand to develop awireless network during this academicyear. Staff expertise in ICT is very good,with a continuous programme oftraining provided through the NewOpportunities Fund, and they are in theprocess of providing a laptop for everyteacher, and an electronic whiteboard orequivalent for each department.’

Teachers in Mornington were dealing with aconsiderable variety of new equipment.Furthermore, laptops, wireless networks andelectronic whiteboards present very differentoperational and pedagogical problems andpossibilities. In those circumstances it might beexpected that the teachers would either needmore support or need to spend more time onself-support, which in fact is what is reported.

This suggests that, in thinking about the mostcost-effective support, we need to view theneed for support as not being static, butrelating to cycles of innovation in which thedemand for support and the kind of supportrequired will vary from phase to phase.

Best practice in the use of open sourcelicensing solutionsIt is probably not possible to answer thisquestion on the basis of the project evidence,for the following reasons. Best practice is thatpractice which best achieves the desired ends,while using only ethically acceptable means todo so. In the case of schools, the main aimrelates to pupils’ learning, but the project wasnot designed to provide any direct informationon the link between OSS use and pupils’learning. However, in general, anything thatreduces the cost of some part of the mechanicsbehind the teaching and learning activitiespotentially helps learning by freeing resourcesthat can be used in other ways. Hence costsaving, as distinct from cost cutting, throughthe introduction of OSS, could lead indirectlyto better educational attainment.

There seems to be no reason why OSS ingeneral should achieve better educational

outcomes than non-OSS products. While aparticular OSS package may be better than agiven non-OSS alternative, there does not seemto be any reason why, in general, that should beso. If this is correct, the case for OSS rests verylargely on the cost advantages rather than anydirect educational benefits. This emphasises theimportance of a strategic approach to financialplanning, in which cost savings are thenallocated to best meet the wider educationalaims of the school; it is here that cost savingscan turn into educational gains.

Successful implementation of OSSPerhaps one good test of a successfulimplementation is the willingness of thoseinvolved to continue with the innovation aftera project has ended. To check this, the projectteam asked head teachers whether they hadany plans to continue or extend the use of OSS.These were the responses:

“This is difficult because of the views ofthe teachers on it – they seem to preferMicrosoft Word, but only because theyare more familiar with it.”

“I’d like to see a mixture of open sourceand proprietary software. We had someresistance from staff when we tried toset up open source on their laptops asthey also wanted Microsoft, and itcaused us a bit of a hassle. We didn’twant to have to spend money onlicences, but in the end we had to.”

“Without doubt, OSS will continue to beused at least as much as at present.”

“The school intends to continue withOSS in the same way it is used atpresent.”

“If I moved anywhere else […]

I’d implement open source software

because the financial savings are considerable and

this releases more resources to tackle

successful implementation.”

“OSS works and so we’ll stay with it.Importantly, it works across the wholecluster. There’s a ‘critical mass’ benefitthere.”

“The school already uses OSS as muchas possible. This will certainly continue.”“New systems introduced into theschool will run OSS – so its use willincrease. The intention is only to useproprietary products when absolutelynecessary.”

“There are plans to build an electromusic suite using open source softwarethat is currently in development andnearly ready for use. [We are] alwayslooking for open source alternatives forall the current subject-specific softwarebeing used.”

This is an encouraging set of responses forsupporters of OSS, bearing in mind that some ofthe schools were already covering the fullspectrum of OSS use. However, it should beemphasised that these schools were identifiedas ones that were already using OSS before theproject, so are highly atypical of English schoolsgenerally. How can we summarise the views ofthe participants in a way that links their verydifferent experiences and responses to the widersetting of English schools as a whole? One wayis to look at the characteristics of the OSS whichwould be expected to affect its uptake inschools, and then see how this compares withthe introduction of OSS in our project schools.

In his book summarising research on thediffusion of innovations, Rogers (1995) drawsout from the studies he analysed fivecharacteristics of innovations that are likely toaffect the speed at which they are taken up.Innovations are more likely to be adoptedquickly if they have high relative advantages,

compatibility, trialability and observability, andless complexity. So how well, on the basis ofthe project evidence, does introducing OSS ateach of the three levels meet Rogers’ criteria? Asummary answer is given in Table 5.

This table shows that the innovation profilesof the three levels at which OSS wasintroduced were different in a number ofrespects. The innovation profiles for PCs withan open source operating system alone andboth an open source and a non-open-sourceoperating system (the dual-platformapproach) were also significantly different.

Using OSS to run the school’s servers andprovide school-wide facilitiesThe use of OSS for servers was generally seen ashaving a high level of relative advantage, havinglower costs, more reliability and similar or greater ease of use than non-OSS systems. Thus it

matched well to any interest a network managerhad in adjusting the infrastructure to suit theneeds of the school, and its relative cost-effectiveness matched the concerns of seniorstaff to make best use of the funding available.

Migrating a school’s technical infrastructure toopen source is not, however, something easilydone on a trial basis. In schools with a singleserver, there is no way of trialling the change fora system that has to be running continuously.Schools with more than one server are betterplaced, and it was perhaps significant thatschools in this position appeared to be triallingOSS on some servers only.

Finally, it is not generally obvious to others inthe school whether or not a server is runningOSS. Although it might be expected that thereduced costs and improved reliability wouldbe seen by others, this may not always be so.Some senior management teams were not fullyaware of the cost savings, while the number offaults occurring was so low that, for anyindividual teacher, improvements here mightnot be that noticeable either.

Overall, however, the prospects for a moregeneral take-up of open source at the serverlevel look good.

Project report

16

“...anything that reduces the cost (...)

behind the teaching and learning potentially helps

by freeing resources that can be

used elsewhere.”

Factor affecting speed of take-up of innovation

Relative advantage: the degree to which anadvantage is perceived as better than the idea itsupersedes.

Compatibility: the degree to which an innovationis perceived as being consistent with the existingvalues, past experiences and needs ofpotential adopters.

Complexity: the degree to which an innovation isperceived as difficult to understand and use.

Trialability: the degree to which an innovation maybe experimented with on a limited basis.

Observability: the degree to which the results ofan innovation are visible to others. The easier it isfor individuals to see the results of an innovation,the more likely they are to adopt it.

OSSservers

OSSonly

OSS PCs

Dualplatforms

OSSapplications

High

High

Low

Generallylow

Low

Variable

Variable

Variable

Low

Generallylow

Variable

High

Low

High

Generallylow

Variable

Variable

Variable

High

Generallylow

Table 5: The three levels of implementation of OSS rated against Rogers’ five criteria for speed oftake-up of an innovation (based upon Rogers, 1995, pp. 15–16).

17


Using OSS to provide the operating systemsfor classroom and administrative PCs The provision of OSS on PCs/laptops can eitherinvolve having only an open source operatingsystem or setting up the computer with bothan open source and a non-open-sourceoperating system. These dual-platform PCsallow users to switch between OSS and non-OSS applications as they wish. As Table 5shows, the innovation profiles of these twoapproaches differed considerably.

The PCs with only an open source operatingsystem had a number of relative advantagesover those running only under a non-OSSsystem. One advantage mentioned was that asystem such as Linux takes up less memory,increasing speed and allowing the continueduse of older and more limited machineswithout any loss of performance.

While open-source-only PCs might be viewedpositively by ICT support staff and seniorteachers because they embody theircommitment to open source values, theywere not necessarily viewed in the same wayby those classroom teachers who hadreservations about using OSS applications.For these teachers, the introduction of open-source-only PCs meant also that they had tolearn to use OSS applications. An open-source-only machine also lacked trialability –the move to OSS-based working had to becomplete from the start. As with all classroominnovations, the visibility is low unless there isa structured forum for OSS discussions andsupport among users.

Overall, then, open-source-only PCs have anumber of weaknesses in terms of quick take-up being likely. In some case studyschools this led to the dual-platformapproach being tried instead.

The difficulty with this was that it reduced costsavings, as the PCs still had to have non-open-source systems as well, which made thecontinuing use of older PCs at the classroomlevel less attractive. Nor did it necessarily makethe use of OSS any more attractive or lesscomplex to teachers. An advantage of the dual-platform approach was that it allowed farbetter trialability. Again, as a classroominnovation, dual use was not particularly visibleto others.

So the two ways of introducing open sourceoperating systems both had problems: thefirst sometimes being seen as offering toosteep a learning gradient, the second havingso low a gradient that there was no realpressure upon a teacher doubtful about OSSto make the move to explore it at all. Thissuggests that the successful introduction ofopen source operating systems would need tobe part of a carefully planned and arguedoverall strategy.

Using OSS on classroom and administrativePCsThe position with application software wasless clear-cut. There were clearly divergentviews on the relative advantages of OSS andnon-OSS applications, with administratorsgenerally opposed or indifferent to OSS, andpupils and teachers divided on the relativemerits of the two.

The concerns of administrators and seniorstaff about administrative OSS use centred onlack of compatibility with other administrativepackages, and with the training and previousexperience of administrators. This was notbecause OSS packages were seen as morecomplex. In general they were described asless complex or as complex as equivalent non-OSS packages.

OSS applications were trialable in tworespects. First, OSS was sometimes introducedon different sets of PCs within the classroomat different times. Secondly, the possibilityeither of running dual systems or providingOSS applications that ran under non-open-source operating systems meant that aclassroom user could often have the choice ofusing the OSS or the non-OSS version of anapplication. Indeed, as we saw above, this wasexactly what some pupils and teachersreported doing.

The range of content-specific software usedwas very small, but it is unclear how far thiswas because a limited range of good qualitysoftware was available or because its existencewas not known to the schools. (Some possiblesources for additional software are given inBruggink, 2003, and Vuorikari, 2003.)

However, like most classroom innovations, theuse of OSS was not likely to be highly visibleto other teachers working in different rooms,unless, as in the Evenlode cluster, there was anactive policy of discussing, encouraging andsupporting its use within and between schools.

Overall, the prospects for an expansion of OSSapplication use and content-specific softwarelook good.

“New systems introduced into the school

will run open source software – so its use will increase.

The intention is only to use proprietary products

when absolutely necessary.”

Project report

18

ConclusionsThe findings from the survey and case studiessuggest that OSS has the functionalityneeded to provide a suitable technicalinfrastructure and to meet the requirementsfor a basic set of applications for classroomuse. The position on content-specificsoftware appears weaker, although the fullrange of available software and its qualitywould need to be reviewed to clarify howserious an obstacle this is. There are alsoquestions about interoperability in the areaof administration and management packages.However, the possibility of setting up dual-platform PCs indicates that OSS already hasadequate functionality, which in future couldbe developed to support administration and management.

It is clear that there are potential cost savingswith OSS, and a significant number of the

sample schools originally considered OSSbecause of budget constraints. However,these savings are not evenly distributedacross the three areas investigated – serverand computer operating systems andapplications. Cost savings are likely to dependa great deal on how the school implementsand supports the change. For example, feederprimaries that were part of a mutuallysupportive cluster clearly benefited fromtheir local support agreement.

The project schools indicated a degree ofreliance on an informed and experienced‘champion’ of OSS, driving the implementationas appropriate. Schools wanting to takeadvantage of the potential cost benefits of OSSwould need to consider how to accessappropriate skills and knowledge to underpinand support any proposed migration orimplementation of open source.

There appeared to be a culture of well-defineduser support in OSS schools, where attentionwas focused on training in the use of newapplications. Strong strategic leadership in ICTrequires a clear vision and strategy. Theimplementation of OSS promoted positivediscussions between the senior managementteam, ICT managers, staff and users. This is agood example of how introducing a newinnovation into the school environment canfoster change and develop institutions atmany levels.

Migration to open source may not be the bestoption for all schools, although the potentialbenefits clearly make it an option worthserious consideration. Careful planning anddiscussion would be needed within the school,and it is important to think about whatcombination of elements of open source itmight be worth introducing and why.

19


ReferencesBecta (2005) ‘Open source software inschools: a case study report’.http://www.becta.org.uk/publications

Briggs, J. and Peck, M. (2003) ‘A case studybased analysis on behalf of the Office ofGovernment Commerce’.http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=2190

Bruggink, M. (2003) ‘Open source software:Take it or leave it? The status of open sourcesoftware in Africa: A study towards informeddecision-making on ICT-platforms’, ResearchReport No. 16, June 2003, InternationalInstitute for Communication and Development.http://www.ftpiicd.org/files/research/reports/report16.pdf

Office of the e-Envoy (2002) ‘Open sourcesoftware: Use within UK Government’,Version 1, 15 July. Available from:http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=2190

Office of Government Commerce (Sept 2002)‘Open source software: Guidance onimplementing UK Government policy’.Available from:http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=2190

Office of Government Commerce (2004)‘Government open source software trials final report’. Available from:http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=2190

Rogers, E.M. (1995) ‘Diffusion of innovations’,Free Press, New York.

Scrimshaw, P. (2002) ‘Total cost of ownership:A review of the literature’, DfES ICT in SchoolsResearch and Evaluation Series, Report No. 6,Becta, Coventry.http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/tco.pdf

Shuttleworth Foundation (2004) The School Tool Project.http://www.schooltool.org

Vuorikari, R. (2003) ‘Why Europe needsfree and open source software andcontent in schools’, Insight Special Report,European Schoolnet, Brussels.http://www.eun.org/insight-pdf/special_reports/Why_Europe_needs_foss_Insight_2004.pdf

Yin, R. K. (2003) ‘Case study research:Design and methods’, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks.

“This is a good example

of how introducing

a new innovation

into the school

environment can

foster change and

develop institutions

at many levels.”

Project report

20

Appendices

Appendix 1:Data collection and analysis

Data collection The main instrument used was the Becta TotalCost of Ownership (TCO) Model – an onlinetool which has been used to collect and recorddata from schools in a range of projects. Theoutputs of the Becta TCO Model can then berepresented as total annual costs per PCfor each school or per student to enablecomparisons.You can view the Becta TCO Modeland example data online [http://tco.ngfl.gov.uk]– username, ExampleSecondary; password,ExampleSecondary16.

In addition, a survey of staff was carried out togather information about their satisfaction withand their perception of the reliability of ICTfacilities and services. The survey also collatedtheir views of their own skills and training.

All of this data was tabulated in a form thatallowed comparisons between the individualOSS schools, and also comparisons with theaverage results for the non-OSS primary andsecondary school sets.

One or two key staff in each OSS school alsohad an opportunity to take part in a structuredfeedback session in which they could compare

their school’s TCO figures against those ofothers. In one or two cases this revealed amisinterpretation that was corrected and theresults revised accordingly.

A standard format was provided by the projectteam for the eight case studies. Researcherswere appointed to collect and collate this dataand to interview key staff and, in most cases,pupils, in each of the case study schools.

Method of analysisThe school case studies were analysed toidentify trends highlighting how OSS was beingused; from this the case study report wasdrawn up.

The project report was prepared by anindependent researcher using all these datasources, working closely with the project team.The content of the report was based onrecasting the project objectives and aims inquestion form to provide the section headingsused above. The various data sources were thenstudied to identify their relevance to each ofthese questions. This method of analysis is avariant on that proposed by Yin (2003). It wasselected as arguably offering the most elegantmatch with the project’s overall design andmethods of data collection. It also had theadvantage of mapping the results closely ontoBecta’s original intentions, with potentialbenefits for subsequent implementation.

Appendix 2: The open sourcesoftware packages available inproject schools

The software listed below are those which oneor more project schools reported using. This isnot therefore a complete list of OSS relevant toschools, or necessarily always the best available.For other possibilities, see sources mentioned inBruggink (2003) and Vuorikari (2003).

Apache is a popular web server, with a rangeof standard features – other more advancedfeatures are available through optional add-inmodules.

Audacity is a free audio editor for recording,editing and playing sounds and for importingand exporting audio files in a range ofcommon formats.

Bridge Builder is a freeware computer game.The object of the game is to construct a bridge,using a limited number of beams, that a trainmay cross.

Calc is an interactive calculator for making largenumeric calculations, but which can also beprogrammed for difficult or long calculations.

Crocodile Clips is a real-time circuit simulatorthat uses animation to demonstrate electronicconcepts.

Fake Ident is a tool that replies with a standardanswer to all incoming identd requests on a host.

Fcron lets you schedule jobs to run at aspecified time. The system does not need to berunning continuously to use Fcron.

Fetchmail fetches emails from a remotemachine; it does not require a 24-hour internetconnection to do this.

GIMP can be used as a simple paint program orfor image-manipulation – for example forretouching photos, rendering images orconverting images into different formats.

Grep utilities are a family of Unix tools that areused for searching the contents of files forspecified text.

21


IrfanView is a very fast, small, compact andinnovative freeware graphic viewer for Windows.

Ipchains is an IP accounting and packetfiltering administration service.

GTI JPEGSaver is a screensaver slideshow thatallows users to turn image files into aslideshow, complete with transition effects.

Konquer is a file manager that can display thecontents of a file or directory, and also displaysweb pages and the contents of some text files.

Linux is an operating system for which thesource code is freely available. It runs on manydifferent hardware platforms, and a vast rangeof applications have been written for it.

Mozilla is an open source browser that formsthe basis for Netscape and other browsers. Ithelps users create web pages, check and sendemail, and read and respond to newsgroups. Italso includes an IRC chat program.

MSW Logo is one implementation of acomputer programming language designed tobe easy to learn and use by everyone, includingchildren. Although created with children inmind, it is still a complete and powerfulprogramming language.

Nmap is a security tool used to determinewhat ports are open on a given system.

OCS inventory is an application designed tohelp the network administrator keep track ofthe computer’s configuration and the numberof copies of software installed on the network.

OpenOffice is a free, open source, cross-platform office suite with many of the samefeatures as commercial suites.

Passook automatically generates passwords.Users can choose different levels of security forthe password.

PasswdGen is a utility for systemadministrators who, for security reasons, wantto generate random passwords based on theirown criteria.

PDFCreator provides a simple method ofcreating PDF files.

Postfix is a Simple Mail Transfer Protocol(SMTP) email server for UNIX.

Pro/DESKTOP is a commercial computer-aided design (CAD) software package thatenables users to design using 3D solid models,and then go on to produce engineeringdrawings and photo-realistic renderings.

PuTTY is a terminal emulator for various networkprotocols. It can run on a Windows machine, andconnect to, for example, a Linux machine.

Qpopper is the most widely used server for thePOP3 protocol (this allows users to access theirmail using any POP3 client).

Rosegarden-4 is a MIDI and audio sequencer,notation editor, and general-purpose musiccomposition and editing application for Unixand Linux.

Samba is a software suite that runs on aplatform other than Windows (eg Linux/Unix)and provides seamless file and print services toWindows-based clients.

Secure Shell (SSH) is a program for logginginto, and executing commands on, a remotemachine. It is intended to provide secureencrypted communications.

Sniffit is a network protocol analyser or packetsniffer that listens to network traffic andproduces analysis based on the traffic and/ortranslates packets into some level of humanreadable form.

Squid is software that caches internet data. If auser wants to download a web page, Squidobtains it from the remote server and transfersit to the user’s machine, keeping a copy for anyfuture requests.

squidGuard provides URL-based filteringsupported by database categories to stop usersaccessing unwanted sites.

SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmailpackage written in PHP4.

StarOffice is an office productivity suite thatoffers word processing, spreadsheet,presentation, drawing and database capabilities.StarOffice is not ‘open source’ in the true senseof the definition, but it is considered part of thiscategory as it is an inexpensive alternative, andhas a number of open source components.

Super Duper Music Looper allow users tocreate music on their PCs. It is primarilydesigned for children aged 6–10.

Music Box is a commercial music-makingpackage for children that covers sounds, chords,percussion and composition in four self-contained parts. It is designed with the non-specialist teacher in mind.

Tux Paint is a drawing program for youngchildren, with a simple interface and fixedcanvas size.

Vi is a text editor that runs under Unix.

Virtual CD ROM lets the user create a virtualCD drive on a hard disk.

Wine makes it possible to run Windowsprograms alongside any Unix-like operatingsystem, particularly Linux.

xinetd helps control network connections to acomputer and provides security againstintrusion.

Project report

22

All figures are calculated from the outputs ofthe Becta Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)Model. The model is designed to give annualTCO figures for schools using data contributed

by schools, including responses from the staffuser survey. These can then be represented astotal annual costs per PC for each school or perstudent to enable comparisons.

You can view the Becta TCO Model andexample data online [http://tco.ngfl.gov.uk] –username: ExampleSecondary and password:ExampleSecondary16.

Annual TCO per PC (£)

Hardware costsSoftware costs Network costs Consumables costs Training costs Formal support costs Self-support costs TOTALS

Annual TCO per student (£)Hardware costsSoftware costs Network costs Consumables costs Training costs Formal support costs Self-support costs TOTALS

Annual software costs per PC (£)OfficeEmailFor management For curriculumFor administrationOperationalTOTALS

Annual network costs per PC (£)Internet costs LAN costs WAN costs WAN link costs TOTALS

Annual support costs per PC (£)Formal staff support costsPurchased support costsSelf-support costsTOTALS

280.5364.1466.9453.1353.31

406.16303.83

1228.04

42.399.34

10.048.037.16

65.9252.57

195.45

10.682.841.67

33.015.73

10.2164.14

40.0616.05

3.527.30

66.93

285.34120.82303.83709.99

151.9332.5661.5824.2127.04

206.61283.39787.32

42.849.93

19.427.028.42

59.8979.75

227.27

8.860.163.29

10.524.545.18

32.55

19.7836.14

4.990.66

61.57

191.9814.62

283.39489.99

221.8867.1056.7628.3311.53

385.62264.48

1035.70

50.4114.8112.78

6.272.33

102.3257.69

246.61

27.772.433.60

19.3512.82

1.1167.08

25.4424.06

2.035.23

56.76

347.9237.70

264.48650.10

47702141

108674956

71118

3764

160645772

3711

14431525270

1425

1127

21

87224959

6849

10885

23554

10776

8567

152112361

5913892

327

9135

46746749

78150246

13108

5539

10775

Non-OSSprimary

131.7144.6814.1121.8957.50

273.17148.86691.92

29.9211.00

3.685.15

11.4441.9630.14

139.88

3.970.302.40

30.911.755.33

44.66

5.594.033.940.54

14.10

247.0826.08

148.86422.02

OSSprimary

OSSsecondary

Non-OSSsecondary

OSS as %non-OSSprimary

OSS as %non-OSS

secondary

Appendix 3: Summary of the total cost of ownership (TCO) by school phase and availability or non-availability of OSS

Inclusion of resources within this publication does not imply endorsement byBecta, nor does exclusion imply the reverse. Becta does not accept anyresponsibility for, or otherwise endorse, any information contained withinreferenced sites, and users should be aware that some linked sites may containsponsorship or advertising information.

URLs and information given in this publication were correct at the time of publication,but may be vulnerable to change over time.

© Becta 2005

You may reproduce this material, free of charge in any format or medium withoutspecific permission, provided you are not reproducing it for profit, material orfinancial gain.

You must reproduce the material accurately and not use it in a misleading context.If you are republishing the material or issuing it to others, you must acknowledgeits source, copyright status and date of publication.

05/DD04-05/1056/T265/RF/50

British Educational Communications

and Technology Agency (Becta)

Millburn Hill Road, Science Park,

Coventry CV4 7JJ

Tel: 024 7641 6994

Fax: 024 7641 1418

Email: [email protected]

URL: www.becta.org.uk

open source software in schools a study of the spectrum of use … · 2015-07-29 · open source...

Documents