Data Transfer (Was Changing from SIMS)

[GREED]

There Is Currently no in the project scope for 2 way transfer other than sending alerts and messages and such back. Obviously the system will be built with that in mind for the future.

[GREED]

With the obvious exception of a CTF transfer which will be a pull from the school and not a push from DX

[PhillipHamlyn]

GREED,

 

The 2 way transfer was in scope at the supplier consultation event (suppliers were asked to provide outline cost estimates for two way transfers), and it was the recommendation of the technical focus group to seperate out the School -> Dfe and the Dfe -> School transfers, so I'm glad to hear this has in fact occured.

 

Phillip

[penfold_99]

How? Will they be putting money into schools to pay for the set-up and maintenance?

 

Integration with DX would be handled by your MIS supplier.

 

Will they pay for the staff time to investigate and correct problems when the system goes wrong?

 

No. Its the same as if you were asking your MIS supplier to pay for your time to investigate issues with their system.

 

Will they pay a retainer to suppliers to build the software?

 

Probably not, it will be mandated like census but hopefully cheaper to implement.

 

We were asked to put in a feed for the LEA, they would suck data out of our system for their use. We refused on my recommendation. There was simply nothing in it for us except the work to make it work - it would cost us time and effort to set up and every time something went wrong. There was no disadvantage to the school in refusing so why would we?

 

Sorry but this shows that you can't see the bigger picture. The LEA would need the data to fulfill their statutory role, as the automation hasn't been put in place more than likely the extraction of data is done manually and returned via other methods. This is probably costing the school more in time than what is required to setup and maintain it.

 

IMO there is a misunderstanding somewhere. ASC for instance is more a data quality exercise than a data transfer exercise. A lot of effort goes in at the school end to make sure the data is a true reflection of the school because funding is predicated on the result. Similarly a lot of effort goes in by the DfE and software suppliers to specify and produce valid, accurate data. It's just about doable as a one off exercise every so often. Keeping that quality all the time - forget it.

 

I may be reading this wrong but it sound like your internal policies allow for incorrect data to be entered with the assumption that it will be corrected before census. Drip feeding correct data over time will always be easier than trying to correct a backlog of issues in a very tight deadline.

 

Other than independently assessed 'examinations', do you think schools will rely on the quality of assessment data coming from another school?

 

Yes schools do rely on assessments from previous schools, the best example of this is KS2 teacher assessments, a secondary school will use these as a basis to set new year 7 students as test results are not available.

 

And why would attendance data from another school matter to them?

 

Having historical attendance would allow the new school to identity any possible issues with future attendance and put policies in to support the student.

 

There was a previous DfE site for exchanging CTF files - what happened to that (why didn't it really work and why are CTF files emailed around between schools instead). I doubt the answer is because the technology is not capable of doing the job.

 

The School2School website not still about? Emailing CTF files is a big no no.

 

There is very little appreciation that the main problem is procedural and the impact on schools to make it work would be huge. Even if there is appreciation of that, the people who can do something about it are not in the room or actually involved.

 

The ISB have spend a lot of time documenting the workflows surrounding how data is use in schools. I believe they are available online @GREED might be able to dig out a link.

 

Let's take the bad example - Imagine standardising practices to improve behaviour in schools. Imagine a government trying to impose a national system of behaviour management. I mean the advantages would be potentially huge - imagine all those data managers who would never have to touch the reporting systems because suppliers would supply the same report to everyone. And because the process and procedure would be exactly the same at every school, no one would actually need a different report. This seems to me little different from the nirvana promised by DX - huge potential future advantages being sold, little real thought as to the cost and effort that would be required to achieve it.

 

The scenario here and the DX project would have the same outcome, reduced effort on the data manager's part but you have been bias in you view of DX by assuming there is zero cost to a school in adopting a new behaviour recording policy (staff training etc).

[PhilNeal]

@penfold_99 I agree with all most everything. Data validation is a problem though. I think we over validate on input and need to allow more null entries so that schools can get pupils into the system immediately. The problem with a drip feed to DfE is that the null entry approach may result in that data never being collected.

 

As an aside I thought this NHS project is something to learn from

 

NHS to scrap £356m outpatient booking system

[pcstru]

Integration with DX would be handled by your MIS supplier.

OK. So the system will be pre-configured with all the server addresses etc. But in the scenario suggeted by @GREED of a two way transfer, it is unlikley that MIS suppliers will want to be responsible for the configuration as to how data flows. Pre-config should work well for a simple, one way transfer.

No. Its the same as if you were asking your MIS supplier to pay for your time to investigate issues with their system.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. We pay the MIS supplier large sums of money every year for support and maintenance. Problems with DX could be anywhere - at the school end, at the DfE end, in the transport or software. If there is a problem with DX it will cost the school just to figure out who to call. The internal support cost tends to be higher that normal on such systems because the first people we phone, inevitably fob us off and blame everyone else. So there will be a cost to the school of supporting their end of the DX machine.

 

ASC is strongly coupled to the funding process. DX as a concept, seems only very lightly coupled to that as a process. How usefull ASC is to DX as motivation for consistent data quality will depend not on the technology but on the process by which the data is used in the calculations - specifically the snapshot methods - when, how often.

 

Probably not, it will be mandated like census but hopefully cheaper to implement.

I don't see anything on the legislative timetable that will do that. ASC is 'mandated' as part of the funding process. The detail of how the Census data relates to the allocation of funding is fairly transparent - you know what you have to get right and you know the impact that has. Schools are motivated to get it right because mistakes cost them real money. Apart from me asking the question, no one is saying anything much about the detail of that process in relation to the new DX.

 

I'm also a little sceptical about cheaper to implement. A more complex system is unlikely to be cheaper - for anyone.

 

Sorry but this shows that you can't see the bigger picture. The LEA would need the data to fulfill their statutory role, as the automation hasn't been put in place more than likely the extraction of data is done manually and returned via other methods. This is probably costing the school more in time than what is required to setup and maintain it.

It's interesting that you say that given the minimal evidence you have of the situation - do you think YOU might have some bias? The transfer was one way, from us to the LEA, there was no suggestion that other requests would not be made should we go ahead, it was extra work for us with no benefit to us. Perhaps if I didn't see the bigger picture it is because, despite my enquiries, no one bothered to paint it or perhaps it is because there really was no benefit. Occams Razor.

 

We were not asked again and if that project is successful within the LEA then it is, like many other successful data transfer projects, very, very stealthy.

I may be reading this wrong but it sound like your internal policies allow for incorrect data to be entered with the assumption that it will be corrected before census. Drip feeding correct data over time will always be easier than trying to correct a backlog of issues in a very tight deadline.

I don't believe I suggested any such thing but perhaps I have been unclear. We enter data as best we have it but people bend and break the systems for their own needs and all the data may not be given by the parent or available at the time of admission. We are not unique in this and it will be a problem for the center if they expect quality data but 22,000 schools are failing to supply that. Perhaps they don't expect quality?

 

Yes schools do rely on assessments from previous schools, the best example of this is KS2 teacher assessments, a secondary school will use these as a basis to set new year 7 students as test results are not available.

I was careful with my wording "independently assessed 'examinations'" but obviouolsy not careful enough. Assessement at KS2 is carefully regulated. That is exactly the kind of overhead you have with a process which is expected to generate quality data which is part of the point I am trying to make. A DX system doesn't itself give quality and the cost of quality and consistency across 22,000 different organisations is high. It's all very well saying a data container will contain this data in this format, but that doesn't make it do-able.

 

To my mind there is a high level incompatibility between the autonomy the government wants to delegate to schools and the consistency in approach and practice demanded by data quality/consistency. That's not too difficult to achieve on data like gender and ethnicity, but it would be a huge task with something like behaviour or teacher assessment of student progress.

Having historical attendance would allow the new school to identity any possible issues with future attendance and put policies in to support the student.

How would you know an 'issue' wasn't just a systems or data quality issue? Even if the data is correct and complete, it won't be of any consequence unless the attendance is low in the current school and at that point, a teacher will be more interested in the under lying reasons for that, not just the fact of it. It is unlikely that a school would say - let's look at the raw attendance data of the new Year 7 intake and target interventions based on attendance at the previous school. They might target interventions based on attendance at *their* school by which time the incoming history may be entirely irrelevant.

The School2School website not still about? Emailing CTF files is a big no no.

It may well be but it is not a shining example of data exchange delivering on the kind of promises that usually accompany it. If DX worked well, saved money and improved the quality in terms of educational outcomes (the end product of a schools processes), then that success would drive awareness and growth. The fact that we are only rather vaugue about School2School service after nearly a decade of operation, suggests it has not shone. Generic "DX projects" tend to be like that, they oversell and then claim success while barely surviving supping life support from an iron lung.

The ISB have spend a lot of time documenting the workflows surrounding how data is use in schools. I believe they are available online @GREED might be able to dig out a link.

That might be useful. I certainly worry that without a good statement of the detail @GREED might be talking about just some automated ftp at the end of the ASC process whereas I'm thinking of huge datacenters, lot's of flashing lights, data rippling around like ducks on ice while huge AI neural networks neve before contemplated, even by the mice, plot their way from shuffling student data to becoming skynet. Neither I'm sure are true, but if that is so, what actually is this DX? I certainly got the impression from GREED's blog of a regular two way transfer involving a wide range of data, whereas the last few posts here suggest the only firm plan is basically one way based on ASC and there is no particular change to the process of ASC and the critical link to funding - i.e. it will still be based on a 'timed snapshot' and the process in terms of data quality will be around getting that snapshot right - other than data transport, that is essentially ASC as we know it. I'd guess at this point a lot of work has gone into the technical detail while very little thought has gone into implementation (in terms of making the process work rather than making software). The costs and benefits that we are really debating are in future stages that are ... rather more 'blue sky' than Greeds blog suggests.

 

The scenario here and the DX project would have the same outcome, reduced effort on the data manager's part but you have been bias in you view of DX by assuming there is zero cost to a school in adopting a new behaviour recording policy (staff training etc).

 

I'm confused by that since I am not assuming zero cost or zero effort. I assume successful DX will have a significant (enough) cost to a school to kill it without significant and obvious benefits or motivation (a link to funding). The fact that the sell has to be on the back of promised future benefits tells me it's a solution in search of a problem. At best that would be an unusual recipe for success.

Edited May 12, 2014 by pcstru

[GREED]

I'm seeing what ISB process workflow documents are available, will come back with anything I can find.

 

I'm also going to see if I can dig out DfE statements of intent and benefit analysis pieces they did as part of this project (assuming I am allowed to publish them... I might not yet).

 

There is a huge amount of conversation around cost to schools. I'm confused where this has come from, at all. There will not be any cost to schools. This will be built and maintained and supported by your MIS supplier, this is the burden they (unfortunately) have. Imagine this as a free, yet mandated module of your MIS.

 

In addition, just because it is complex, given it is replacing between 6 and 30 returns across the whole school sector, depending on the type of establishment you are, there is a tangible manpower cost saving.

 

I have a great example too of maintaining information drip feed across the year when I implemented an integrated admissions system into the MIS (SIMS) years ago, where previously it was hand copied from one database to another, and the secretaries suddenly found themselves with 3 weeks spare they did not expect to have. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY! Translate this into not having to manage census and assessment returns (the actual returns) at the various times of the year, plus as a result when up and running staff will be cultured to entering information as if census is always ongoing and therefore as complete as possible as well as accurate, there will be no need to prepare data for census!

[PhillipHamlyn]

pcstru,

 

The following link gives the publicly available information presented at the Supplier Launch Event which contains a slide deck from the DfE on their concept of the scope at that date. The link also has regular information bulletins on progress/changes https://online.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk/Common/View%20Notice.aspx?site=1000&lang=en&noticeid=1282858&fs=true.

 

Phillip Hamlyn

[matt40k]

Cheers @PhillipHamlyn, I think two of the slides sum up the goal, cut down the hassle of getting data and producing the extracts.

 

 

Important to note the length of time it takes them to turn the information that we feed them into something we can download.

Edited May 13, 2014 by matt40k

[PhillipHamlyn]

matt40k,

 

Speaking personally (see my sig) I can see how removing the delay between data input and it being available to the DfE and other parties would be a major step forward for accuracy within the DfE and participating providers, and perhaps make it much easier to understand the effect of policy decisions on measurable outcomes.

 

Its important (for me) to highlight the two way transfer between schools and the department illustrated in the slide deck (P24, P25, P27-FR1), and the fact that there is no school to school transfer (as later documents indicate the industry preference for Hub+Spoke P38). On P49 it defines the scope of data (only that essential to the dept and to support "devolved self improvement") which one could take to indicate that individual school policy specific data such as behaviour tracking might not be included. Since part of the business case is to eliminate CTF this means all the data currently in CTF should be automatically imported into the school with minimum human intervention (and CTF covers an aweful lot of student data). The data coverage of the CTF format did not indicate at the supplier meeting that this was to support the CTF process (of moving a student from school to school) but the scope of data included in a CTF. At that meeting this was not going to be restricted to messages and technical information but represented a two-way flow between DfE and School - this (in my view) is probably the most technically demanding issue for suppliers (and perhaps schools) to manage.

 

As I said in an earlier post, this information may have changed since publication and other contributors may have a more up-to-date view of the DfE business case.

[matt40k]

I think just having a single database where the data flows will be massive step forward. As for CTF\S2S - I don't see as School to School, it's school to DfE to School, just the DfE bit is pretty basic. From the schools point, nothing will change, no extra work will happen, maybe the buttons you press or website you go to will change. The process will basically be the same.

 

From what I understand, currently it's (bold is the manual bits):

 

Old School > MIS - pick students, create CTF > upload to S2S (DfE) > New School > download from S2S (DfE) > import to MIS

 

In the future it'll be

 

Old School > MIS > DfE > pick student (MIS or DfE site??) > New School > MIS

 

So the import\export to XML files will disappear and it will be less manual\error prone.

 

Far as what data is contain, I suspect that will boil down to standardizing the MIS system as whole as at the moment suppliers have had pretty much free reign. It's not an area I would particularly like to get involved with personally, it isn't a technical choice, it's specialised area that requires a particular area experts to define a standard and then, and only then can you put a schema together and define how it's going to be transferred. I suspect based on my limited experience with exams, this is going to be a right mess with a number of ideas coming forward and no real winner. If it was up to me, I'd define it by area then a type - so exams > then exam board \ qualification type (A level \ GCSE) so you wouldn't have a single method. Still this would only be good with regards to transferring, you've still got the problem of how do you turn one type into another!

[PhillipHamlyn]

matt40k,

 

I can certainly see how the manual steps would be eliminated in the future, but when I saw it there is nothing in the scope that allowed a school to reject or otherwise interfere (suspend) incoming data from the DX hub - in your illustration you indicate that CTF scoped data would be coming into a school from another (via DfE), assuming its part of a current CTF business process flow. My understanding is that schools will be required to accept data from the DfE whose scope is CTF but which might have been altered for an some other purpose by an some other author and the data subject might be currently present in their school (i.e. not being inducted into their school).

 

This I think is the thorny issue, but it may be that the current business case puts more process behind the process of accepting data changes into a school than when I first saw it.

[matt40k]

I think you might be getting the data exchange and the data warehouse merged.

 

Data Exchange should be just that, data in > data out. S2S\CTF wise, data in, data out. Maybe validation on the data in part - ideally this will happen at the point of data entry but will also occur at other parts - hopefully you suppliers won't just leave it to the transfer part! But this shouldn't cause any real issues to schools - ie you can't put in invalid school as the destination.

 

The sole purpose of the Data warehouse is you transform your data!! This is where the DfE or whoever will do they're transformations - this is what the DfE are saying is manual\done on spreadsheets. This is what will produce the big data - the school performance data.

[PhillipHamlyn]

matt40k,

 

I understand what you are saying, and the two roles are quite seperate. The DX in the business case that I saw did not allow for suspense rules at the DX hub - if a school wanted to prevent their in-school data being updated by another user of the DX hub (for whatever purpose, one of which is CTF) there was no requirement for a school to be able to do this. Sending data to the DX hub required a reciprocal capability of automatically receiving data from the DX hub. This makes sense from an architectural point of view, but not perhaps from a cultural point of view. I personally believe head teachers in schools would not wish to have their students data updated from a remote system without being able to accept or eyeball the changes - especially if they did not form part of an accepted process such as CTF. I think some kind of in-school suspense processing would be a strong desire of many school data managers. The DX facility is designed to make data transfer almost real-time and this changes the business process in the school from one where they "import" data (via S2S/email/DVD whatever transport mechanism) and follow a process to ingest the data, to one where their data is "automatically" up to date, becasue they are participating in the DX facility.

 

Its not really an architectural question but a business culture one, so I'm probably not best placed to say what would be acceptible to a school data manager; as I'm not one of them.

[pcstru]

The following link gives the publicly available information presented at the Supplier Launch Event which contains a slide deck from the DfE on their concept of the scope at that date. The link also has regular information bulletins on progress/changes https://online.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk/Common/View%20Notice.aspx?site=1000&lang=en¬iceid=1282858&fs=true.

Thanks. Useful.

 

@GREED, On quick look though some of the documents; It's quite light on project collateral, and seems to be a project in startup/initiation phase "Developing the Business case" was mentioned in the Febuary Update. They have a Project Board but no Business Case yet since they talk about it's development. I hope that is a far cry from the certainty of the "will happen" that you have stated several times. It should be because projects CAN and must be capable of being failed if the business case isn't viable. Since they don't yet have one, there can be no certainty.

 

The Analytical review should be worrying :

 

"We need to move to a model where : 1) Data can be automatically moved from one organisation to another with no manual intervention"

 

So they are setting out that they need to achieve something that is extremely unlikely. Matt40K (DX will look like B2B) and PhillipH (heads unlikely to want) seem to lean toward an opinion that overwrite will need the possibility of intervention. I'm sure they will correct me if I have misunderstood.

 

Again the impossible to meet goal just feeds my scepticism that this is a project that is going to deliver. It is far from certain and in my opinion has serious project health issues. The more technical issues (schema, protocol, infrastructure) are probably the least of their problems (most feasible to build a solution to - difficult but not impossible) but are being tackled first; so it will probably struggle on for a while but it's dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

 

At the other end of the scale, Vision 3 : "Data is available to all of the people who need it for decision making when they need it." - well, phew, I do hope they solve that problem! Seriously, are they saying people DON'T have the data they need to make decisions? I appreciate there may be some situations where decision making could be improved, but for most people, when you have job to do and you don't have the information you need to do it, getting that information is top priority. The likelihood that you don't already have "data available" is small.

 

Again from the point of view of "Will Happen" the phases outlined so far they only outline up to phase 3, "Building the Solution", targeted from April 2014 on.

 

I love the phrase "A non exhaustive brainstorm of interest". But I really was exhausted, so I had to stop reading.

[matt40k]

@PhillipHamlyn Quite, I don't see any head teacher letting some big brother update his system without his\her approval first. But what is being updated? From what I can see, "CTF" pupil transfers will still be manual, security wise, you'd need the accept\reject going forward as a form of security if nothing else! So what would they want to push back?

 

Updates to the "CTF" and about the pupils history - i.e. they sent the "file" without historical attendance marks, well technically that data owner (master) would be the old school, so yes, they would, technically, have a right to update it. Would this need to go into suspense? Surely not. If this included a updated mode of transport or ethnicity, would it need to update the new MIS, well unless it was blank, no.

 

Other aspects that might be pushed would be targets - based on data from aggregated data from a data of schools. I don't see that as an "issue" per-say - also things like QAN data, getting it automatically might be a really good thing. Other areas might be FSM, I don't see that as an issue, a school can't argue if a student is applicable if the government is the one who says if they are or not.

 

For me, the key issue is a strong audit trial, both at the DfE and more importantly at the school MIS end. I can't see anything being implemented that would warrant suspense at this time nor in the medium term, perhaps not even into the distance future! So I don't see the terrors of B2B suspense processing should be coming into the data exchange discussion when talking about it in regards to schools. DfE will be another matter, but I suspect a lot of those errors will disappear as time goes on, ensuring everyone is singing from the same hymn book will cure a lot of problems - like everyone is using the same address validation service, the latest lookups etc.

 

(via S2S/email/DVD whatever transport mechanism)

 

You sir should be shot at dawn for even saying email!

 

[GREED]

On quick look though some of the documents; It's quite light on project collateral, and seems to be a project in startup/initiation phase "Developing the Business case" was mentioned in the Febuary Update. They have a Project Board but no Business Case yet since they talk about it's development. I hope that is a far cry from the certainty of the "will happen" that you have stated several times. It should be because projects CAN and must be capable of being failed if the business case isn't viable. Since they don't yet have one, there can be no certainty.

 

'Will happen' is a personal opinion based on what I have heard, know, experience and expertise. I wanted to say 'Will happen if the election goes a certain way' but loses its impact somewhat.

 

But actually, I'm quite tired of having to defend myself. The blog was an opinion based on what I know, so take notice or don't take notice, I really couldn't care any more. You now have documents (older ones, I'm still investigating more recent ones) from DfE so you can have it from the horses mouth as it were. Interesting that now you have that you are still tearing into the opinion-based blog... but never mind. I'm sorry but I feel quite personally attacked at every post so far based on my opinions.

 

In addition, you are not seeking any positives from this project, far from it you are looking for every reason for it to fail. This is quite a sad position to be in when the ideal of what this is trying to achieve is so positive. It might not realise all of these dreams, and knowing the government as we do, it probably won't, but how about getting behind this instead of saying we should scrap the whole thing and stay as we are for another 20 years (*Opinion, not fact).

 

If I were a mod, I'd like to close this thread until May 2017 and then allow us to continue this discussion with what we know then, I really would, perhaps see who was right at a very basic level, although I wouldn't care if I was totally wrong as long as we had a decent system in place!!

 

----

 

Phillip, Matt, there is a lot of what you are saying that is very cultural rather than technical, the former actually being harder to change! This thing about Heads not wanting their data to go out because they don't know or fear what it contains, surely this a) is what I was talking about in the blog (bugger, I mentioned it again!) about protectionism of data, and b) isn't this a fundamental problem that should be solved anyway if there is less confidence that data is being entered incorrectly at source anyway? Just some thoughts for you!

Edited May 13, 2014 by GREED

[pcstru]

But actually, I'm quite tired of having to defend myself. The blog was an opinion based on what I know, so take notice or don't take notice, I really couldn't care any more. You now have documents (older ones, I'm still investigating more recent ones) from DfE so you can have it from the horses mouth as it were. Interesting that now you have that you are still tearing into the opinion-based blog... but never mind. I'm sorry but I feel quite personally attacked at every post so far based on my opinions.

I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. This (sub) thread started basically in response to your blog on the subject of "DX". I am critical of DX but there are also elements of your blog which I think are just wrong. I have tried to be careful and be clear about when I am critical of Dx and when I am being critical of your opinion of Dx. I have tried to be careful and explain points, always giving evidence. I have made no claim to my authority and generally try and steer clear of argument by authority. Nullius in Verbia and all that.

In addition, you are not seeking any positives from this project, far from it you are looking for every reason for it to fail.

I am trying to establish whether a "blog", written by an "education consultant", making a claim of "big changes" within a time-scale which impacts my budgeting decisions, should inform or not, my thinking. That is a necessarily critical viewpoint. A theory (opinion) is backed up by many pieces of evidence but never proven by any or even all. Yet a theory (opinion) is falsified by but one single piece of contrary evidence. *Critical* Thinking - the clue is in the name.

This is quite a sad position to be in when the ideal of what this is trying to achieve is so positive. It might not realise all of these dreams, and knowing the government as we do, it probably won't, but how about getting behind this instead of saying we should scrap the whole thing and stay as we are for another 20 years (*Opinion, not fact).

My ideal is to get as close to the truth as is possible[*1], to evaluate claims based on rationale and evidence and come to some sort of 'rational' conclusion. Opinion you might have a right to. Opinions are distinctly different beasts from facts.

 

In all that there is no personal animosity or disrespect. Quite the reverse from my POV - I might disagree with you, but I don't generally spend any time 'arguing' the toss with people who I think are idiots :-).

 

It would be a shame to close a sub thread which has been interesting enough to draw comment from some interesting commentators (!) . And just like your blog, it would be, wrong! :-)

 

[*1] Which sounds simple but is a pretty tall order all the way from philosophy to physics [*2].

 

[*2] Yea, yea yea, IMO and all that.

Edited May 13, 2014 by pcstru

[GREED]

I'm sorry, can you clarify from your statement above that you a) think I am an idiot, b) think my blog is wrong, c) therefore my opinion is wrong? As opposed to you disagree with it?

 

Your use of speech marks at describing me an education consultant implies an element of sarcasm... would you care to elaborate on that?

 

Apologies if I have read wrong, that seems to be what you are saying and from that I can decide if this is still worth me being involved.

 

I felt as have others that is was clear in my writing where I was describing items of DX (I'm liking this term I seem to have started by the way!) As described to me and elements of analysis and supposition. I'm sorry if you have not read it in that way. From the start I have very much looked to inform and provide an opinion based on what I know and will continue to do so openly. The writen statements by DfE or whoever are just one aspect of the story and you must know that they never alone tell the whole story. Elements have too come from conversations across the sector as well as taking into account trends here and elsewhere. You are a switched on chap I can tell so I suggest you get involved as early as you can and find out all the facts for yourself and form your own opinions. Maybe get involved with the ISB currently that is the best source of information on DX publicly accessible. Those meeting are always fun!

Edited May 13, 2014 by GREED

[GREED]

I'm hoping someone has gotten the ironic reference to WWE Degeneration X - DX.

[pcstru]

I'm sorry, can you clarify from your statement above that you a) think I am an idiot,

I do not think you are an idiot.

b) think my blog is wrong,

I think your blog is wrong. I hope I have been clear what and why.

c) therefore my opinion is wrong? As opposed to you disagree with it?

There are statements in our discussion you have made as fact which are clearly wrong. There are statements pertaining to the future which being of the future are necessarily uncertain, which in my opinion will turn out to be wrong.

Your use of speech marks at describing me an education consultant implies an element of sarcasm... would you care to elaborate on that?

Sorry, they are probably wrong - intended to show they were my words not yours. I use a lot of speech marks because a lot of disagreements are more over the meaning of words, rather than the reality the words represent. You might for instance call yourself a "technical consultant" or any one of many possibilities. People can get precious about such things. No offence was intended to you, I was simply trying to get across why I might give more weight to your opinion than I would to anyone walking in off the street.

Apologies if I have read wrong, that seems to be what you are saying and from that I can decide if this is still worth me being involved.

 

I felt as have others that is was clear in my writing where I was describing items of DX (I'm liking this term I seem to have started by the way!) As described to me and elements of analysis and supposition. I'm sorry if you have not read it in that way. From the start I have very much looked to inform and provide an opinion based on what I know and will continue to do so openly. The writen statements by DfE or whoever are just one aspect of the story and you must know that they never alone tell the whole story. Elements have too come from conversations across the sector as well as taking into account trends here and elsewhere.

Sure and IMO probably your biggest mistake is not being clear in differentiating the state of the project (what it is actually configured to deliver) and the body of opinion that forms round that (the aspirational and visionary stuff that might or might not happen).

You are a switched on chap I can tell so I suggest you get involved as early as you can and find out all the facts for yourself and form your own opinions. Maybe get involved with the ISB currently that is the best source of information on DX publicly accessible. Those meeting are always fun!

 

I don't have time to get involved. I'm interested as I said, because it represents a 'risk' on the horizon which is close enough to effect operational and financial strategic planning. Trying to be ahead of the game and have a sense of what is coming along and what might be disruptive, is part of my job.

[vikpaw]

I'm sorry, can you clarify from your statement above that you a) think I am an idiot, b) think my blog is wrong, c) therefore my opinion is wrong? As opposed to you disagree with it?

 

Your use of speech marks at describing me an education consultant implies an element of sarcasm... would you care to elaborate on that?

 

Apologies if I have read wrong, that seems to be what you are saying and from that I can decide if this is still worth me being involved.

 

...

 

I didn't read anything wrong. It defo means you're not an idiot hence the arguing, the rest is, well, opinion which is just scrambled up onion pi! )

I didn't read the stress on blog / consultant etc as derogatory, just highlights.

 

This is a really interesting thread - though i don't know where you guys find the time, my breaks aren't long enough to read these posts so the day job take precedence

 

The disagreements are what make it interesting, if we all agreed, there'd be no reason to be here and there'd be nothing left to put right.

 

What i have found often is that we do spend a lot of time picking holes in ideas and schemes, and not enough coming up with ways to fix the issues or getting the info to the right people. I'm speaking generally, i know a lot of the contributors are involved in these projects and attend the meetings, i just mean it feels like whatever we 'fix' here ( in a lot of the threads ) rarely ends up on the right desk / in front of the right decision maker to be relevant or acted on.

 

Personally i'm all for data sharing and pushing the data out automatically. If it involves changing the way data is put in, and coming up with a control mechanism to say which is master then i'm all for it. I'm fed up of notes being added to the wrong field and incomplete data. People rarely remember to fill in the gaps and put things right, especially in a sector where there isn't a regular reason to collate and send off data / stats. I've spend years with different systems coming up with audit reports to try and correct data, but there is always an excuse to workaround issue A, or wait for next month, when we'll know about process B.

 

EDIT: ah! you beat me cos my internet is too slow!

Edited May 14, 2014 by vikpaw

[GREED]

Fair enough @pcstru I accept all those points. Clear there is no personal thing going on can put that to bed.

 

Respect you feel I and the article is wrong, others have felt it is right, others are mixed. That's the trials of speaking publicly. I'm always happy to be proved wrong, regardless of all this I'm thrilled that the blog elicited such responses for or against, and the bottom line is it has opened your eyes to the project which can only be a good thing! I accept that the article contains opinion on the future which cannot be taken as fact. I stand by the point that DX will come barring a government change at the election. As I say I hope this thread is still going and intend to revisit when it does.

 

The blog stays, as is, as I still believe it is right, and will continue to do more on this and other subjects.

 

I would LOVE contributions from yourself if you were interested at any time. You are outspoken and back what you believe which is important and you are knowledgeable about the sector.

 

---

 

Anyways back to the OP!

Edited May 14, 2014 by GREED

[GREED]

@vikpaw one of the perks of being a BDM Vik... I develop the market how I see fit during the day

 

And night

[matt40k]

I see your blog @GREED and I raise you:

DfE big plans for big data – Matt Smith