PM me then, I'm on a genuine quest for enlightenment.
This way education can be flexible to suit individual schools, needs, environments etc.
On topic - Interoperability absolutely HAS to happen with MIS and the players should be forced (by law if necessary) to co-operate (although they might appear to be on-side with SIF, it is IMHO a bit of smoke and mirrors and not proper engagement on the part of some!)
Personally I think 'the government' has far too much involvement with school data than is healthy at the moment. How many of you know exactly how much of your personal data is harvested for the School Workfarce Census?
(Sorry can't work out how to put another quote in!) RE: Primary Schools.
I am a Primary School Office Manager. I think you would be surprised how much we rely on our MIS. We (I) certainly use a lot more than 10% of it. I would say we are up to about 75% and rising and I would class us as an Average Primary School of a larger size (nor 320). We use SIMS and I don't mind saying that I wouldn't change.
What you suggest about choosing only components that we will use is exactly what we get with SIMS. We 'buy into' Dinner Money as an 'add on'. Also use FMS and Personnel. We have added on SchoolComms (okay I know that's not SIMS but it is a SIMS partner). We don't have a licence for timetabling; profiles; or exams.
Why do you all keep trying to re-invent the wheel? The biggest problem with school MIS is the woeful lack of understanding (in the Primary sector at least) of most Headteachers and SMT's who seem to think that their admin staff don't need any training or qualifications to do the job and offer 'peanuts' in salary terms! This lack of training is self-evident in many of the posts that you will see both on Edugeek and Supportnet.
Hope I haven't gone 'off topic' too far. In case you wonder about my 'credentials' for the abov POV, come February I will have been using SIMS for 20 years.
Not at all GeeHubb, although you could expect a backlash on your comment about the requirement from training for staff from certain posters...
You would have such an uphill battle persuading me that your product was better I'm afraid!
As for my being 'comfortable' with what I know. Well yes, I am, and I am not going to apologise for that! At this stage, I am not going to want to waste the 20 years of experience with SIMS that I have by going off to learn a new system - though perhaps it is what I should have done earlier in my career!
There is a phenomenal amount of money being wee-weed away out of public funds for school MIS. The BECTA swansong report predicts licensing/maintenance at ~£45 million per year, with support adding additional £65 million per year and AFAIK it's mostly for "old rope". The problem the s/w solves just isn't that big - ask anyone with a serious development clue what they could do with a lean/mean team of their choosing for a small fraction of that, say £1 million a year.. you'll get a bunch of variations on "near perfection".. and there's a very good chance it would be.Quote:
You see I have a problem with the word cheaper.
Here's a very relevant BECTA line with my emphasis: In the light of the current financial pressures facing schools and the nation generally we consider that the base cost and its current rate of increase will both be considered unacceptable.
It is unacceptable.
C'est la vie... it's what the company I worked for wanted when playing standards eons ago, and for all the guff people talk about the lovely open-ess I've seen the same in RFC-land (first time was in the 90s with mail service vendors trying to get SMTP extended their way, not the other lots way).Quote:
Problem with efforts for interoperability (and single sign on) so far, it seems to me, is that major players are each trying to get their own solution adopted
Go buy Phil Neal a Martin and get him to tell you the history of SIMS .net, once he's finished get him to tell you about SMAC, SCRIPT, SAMS, SCAMP etc. Basically all public sector designed MIS systems either go private sector (SIMS) or they die (SMAC etc). Period.