mark (19th September 2010)
Our experience also Gary
With regard to FOSS not being 'free', one normally finds that the cost element comes not from the software, but for ongoing support and development. Surely we can't expect anyone to provide schools with this for free!
My pet concern is that "it is always easier to stick with what we have" and that leads to dreadful lack on inertia and progress, especially with regard to trying new stuff. It's also why the largest companies providing software in our sector continue to become ever more powerful!
PhilNeal (23rd September 2010)
Hi Garry
Well done for having a go at an alternative MIS and doubly well done for making it OS. As I said in my earlier post, things can't go on as they are; something, somewhere has to give and you you're having a go at doing something about it, which is great. Problem is that these days, developing an MIS suitable for secondary schools involves a lot more than putting a front end on a database. How do you export existing data out of, say, SIMS into your system?
For a start we can use a full Common Transfer File. For anything else we can do custom exports and mappings, depending on what the school needs to move. ScholarPack was initially developed as a full replacement for another commercial MIS in a secondary school. So I guess the real answer is that we do it the way any other (commercial) MIS would do it.

I have summarised my responses from this thread and other conversations over the last few days into the blog post below.
Happy reading.
Grumbledook Blogs » The Open Source Threat
Come on Tony I doubt anyone could do this for any single package available we all know that software usage and need is relative to the school/education body in question no two are completely alike.I would ask them to stand up in front of a Local Safeguarding Children’s Board and justify themselves for all schools and educational settings.
Wes

There are only a few times when I would say full scrutiny is needed on the suitability and functionality of particular systems and software, but when it comes to safeguarding I will stand my ground. Some things are too open to mistakes being made and corners being cut. It happens.
If we could always trust people to look after their cars, ensure they are safe and so on ... then would we be able to justify the MOT process?
What were Beca Accredited Filters rated on? What were the criteria for selection/
Wes

The full specification is pretty long and extensive, but I'll try and get a summary. Some of the information is not published in a public forum for security and safety reasons. Tom might actually be better placed to go through this ... needless to say that CEOP give it the nod , as do many other agencies.


Oh no ... it is definitely the software which is accredited. It really is not an easy ride and takes considerable doing.

The accreditation summary can be found here, Becta Schools - Resources - Internet services - Web content filtering products and services requirements and the list of accredited providers here, Becta Schools - Resources - Internet services - Accredited internet services suppliers , details of exactly what testing takes place is not publicly available.

It is also worth pointing there is a kitemark for home filtering software and more details are available at PAS 74:2008: Internet safety - Next Generation Learning
Last edited by GrumbleDook; 23rd September 2010 at 02:50 PM. Reason: explaining the type of software.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)