Views & Opinion Hidden print and copy costs are eating into
school budgets Comment by Mark Bailey, Managing Director of Essex Business Machines Ltd
Cuts in funding across the public sector over the last five years have aided the government’s quest to reduce the deficit and grow the economy; however, the education sector has particularly suffered, with cuts in funding resulting in students being deprived of vital services and materials to aid their learning. The Institute for Fiscal Studies identified significant additional cost pressures, which add up to between 7 and 12 per cent on budgets that are already being stretched, and a survey of England’s Sixth Form colleges reports seven out of 10 principals are worried about an inability to provide a quality education due to cuts. Managing school budgets to reclaim and cut costs in areas that cause minimal impact on students and staff are therefore crucial. One area often overlooked is how much can be saved on printing.
The estimated cost in paper alone is staggering. Every year, an estimated 1,000 sheets of paper are printed for every student in the UK, costing an estimated £150,000. The average school is using 1 million sheets of paper a year, with an
additional spend of £60,000 on photocopying. Comparatively, it is reported that only £56,000 is being spent on IT.
Hidden print and copy costs and overpriced office equipment contracts also eat into school budgets, leaving less money to be spent on teaching supplies.
Print is, and will always be, a necessity in the education sector. Many schools are still reliant on several machines performing different functions when a single Multifunction Printer (MFP) would suffice.
Replacing old devices can significantly increase productivity, with newer models having faster warm up times, better page-per-minute print speeds and eco-friendly features that help to save on energy and toner consumption too. One of the simplest ways to cut print costs is to implement print management software. A recent Lexmark survey found that less than 30% of institutions in the education sector used print management solutions to monitor and allocate their spend. Print management software, such as
Papercut, which was designed specifically for the education sector, provides a clear overview of usage and helps to regulate the costs of scanning and printing.
Print audits are a reliable way of gaining full understanding of exactly what can be done to make serious reductions in print costs - on average, print audits can help schools save up to a third on annual print costs.
Educating staff and pupils in how to be less wasteful when printing, and working with the IT department to set up computers to print in a smaller font size and to use double sided printing by default are changes that every school can make without having to spend any budget at all. Implementing an effective print strategy and using up-to-date devices generates significant long-term savings, and it has other benefits too, including reduced impact on the environment, and increasing staff productivity. Making a few simple adjustments to print methods can be a highly effective way of freeing up budget to be reinvested into learning.
Schools, Counter-Terrorism & the Prevent Duty Comment by Robin Jacobs, Education Law Barrister at Buckinghamshire Law Plus
Since 1 July 2015, all schools have been under a statutory duty to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism” when exercising their functions. There are various pieces of guidance on the so-called “Prevent Duty” and schools will want to be familiar with the following:
Prevent Duty Guidance for England & Wales: General guidance to which all public bodies subject to the duty must have regard. Paras 57 - 76 are concerned with schools and childcare providers.
The Prevent Duty, Departmental Advice for Schools and Childcare Providers, June 2015: Non- statutory advice aimed specifically at schools.
The Use of Social Media for Online Radicalisation, July 2015: A short DfE document explaining terrorists’ use of social media.
Although the government’s sentiment is clear, it might have done more to clarify the practical steps it expects. Nevertheless, it seems that the main ones are as follows:
Staff Training: There appears to be an expectation that staff should be trained to identify
children at risk of being drawn into terrorism, and to challenge extremist ideas. They should know where to refer children for further help.
IT Policies: The DfE expects schools to ensure children are safe from terrorist and extremist material when accessing the internet in school, including by establishing appropriate levels of filtering. The DfE nevertheless appears to recognise that older students may need to research terrorism as part of their studies.
The Curriculum: The guidance encourages schools to create opportunities for debating issues connected to extremism within a safe and controlled setting. Any activities will obviously need to be age and ability appropriate.
Risk Assessments: Schools should be assessing whether any students are at risk of being drawn into terrorism. Assessments will vary from school to school and should be based on local factors. Ideally a written document should be produced, outlining perceived risks and how they are to be guarded against.
Working in partnership with the local authority: Schools would be well advised to consider how
14
www.education-today.co.uk
the Local Children’s Safeguarding Board is approaching the Prevent Duty, to refer to locally agreed inter-agency procedures and to ensure that these are consistent with and reflected in any school child protection policies.
Written Policies: Schools may wish to consider publishing a written policy setting out their commitment to counter-radicalisation and summarising the steps they intend to take. This can provide a useful point of reference.
Phone a Friend: The DfE has set up a counter- extremism hotline for schools. The contact details are
counter.extremism@education.gsi.gov.uk and 020 7340 7264.
As far as enforcement is concerned, Ofsted already has regard to a school’s approach to keeping pupils safe from the dangers of radicalisation. Maintained schools may be declared eligible for intervention if they are adjudged to have failed in this regard, while academies may have their funding agreements terminated. However, schools can take heart from the DfE’s view that the Prevent Duty is consistent with existing safeguarding responsibilities and should not be burdensome.
October 2015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44