School MIS Systems

[GrumbleDook]

@piqueaboo

I don't know whether you have had a look at this https://www.sifassociation.org/uk/upload/news/AZBBZB_How_SIF_works.pdf yet, but it does give a good breakdown of things.

When thinking about the relationship about the MIS and the ZIS, consider the MIS as one of your data stores (admittedly, probably the most important one) and that when it is updated with information it then relays it onto the correct partners. It might be that you update the MIS and it will then pass the info onto your AD. It might also update your cashless catering, your library software, your helpdesk (eg create an account for a member of staff only, but not a student) and so on. It might also relay the change to the VLE, or pass data down to the LA to say that student X is now registered at the school as their home location under 14-19 (and this is subsequently passed on to the MIS in other schools).

 

A chunk of this is security permitting and the background behind this is probably best explained by some of the SIFA UK members working on it rather than me (which is why I haven't responded to some posts as others have more accurate and in-depth knowledge on the latest specifics on SIF) but there are the considerations of "who needs to have information?" and "who decides who gets the information" ...

[PiqueABoo]

::sigh:: Since we're now trading the obvious

 

Saying that the MIS should have been done right in the first place is so bizarre and missing of the history of MIS development in schools

 

I don't mean when it was something that wasn't a credible MIS running on a Commodore Pet or whatever, at some point school MIS became something with a network architecture, multiple users and got one of those RDBs at the back end. No I don't know the nitty gritty history, but a quick Google says SIMs was turning over significantly into 7 figure numbers by 1995 which coincidently is when I reckon most of the IT world, especially the dev part was thinking very hard about how they would adapt their products to fit the Internet (YMMV but by the end of the decade I was seriously bored with those profligate web-interfaces that had managed to surface in every other application). In MIS world specifically, it's also the time when at least some of us were contemplating clunky Edifact files (or similar) and wondering about doing that with *more* standard (network) messaging APIs. Plus SIFA say they (or at least the educational sector wheeler/dealers) have been on the interoperability case it since 1997. It's 2010.

 

I don't know whether you have had a look at this

 

Did you read my questions in the previous post, as in what gave you the impression I'm oblivious to that? SIF are apparently asserting that horizontal interoperability needs ZIS same as vertical operability. I'm asking, again, why that is the case? A lot of apps wanting to read a list a people is obvious and it might be nice to read some bits from places besides the MIS, but what is all this *bi-directional* data flying about? Why do we need to add more complexity and a point of failure i.e. a ZIS, when we seem to get by OK now by adding a single client account to any app that another wants to read from? And we're talking a handful of those other apps not 100s.

 

A standard open protocol for talking to things in classic-client server mode is fine, but for horizontal I really don't get the need for the ZIS... or perhaps that should be ZISs plural, coz if you're building in a single-point of failure by design then I'd want to be replicating that ZIS function somewhere. I'm prepared to change my mind, but only if someone can give me some real examples of things like apps getting ASAP notifications of stuff happening in other apps being useful enough to justify the additional infrastructure.

Edited November 6, 2010 by PiqueABoo
i acn't spell

[marshharrier]

My point exactly! If the database is hosted and maintained for you, the API is free and the front end OS, then ANYONE can develop tools for it without paying huge licence fees and with guaranteed interoperability. At a stroke you get three big advantages: a huge burst of innovation, better quality software and lower prices. Plus you get round the traditional concerns regarding OS solutions because there would be a firm commercial base for the whole thing.

 

@Ed - Sounds good as long as the new wonder-MIS producer doesn't get grandiose ideas of power and ruling the world (like someone else we know).

 

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

 

My idea FWIW is that the Government build the product you suggest i.e. the framework/backbone and then let everyone else build the components. That way you'd have a guarantee that the framework manufacturer wouldn't walk over the component manufacturers when the temptation became too strong.

[GREED]

Do I dare throw into the mix at this stage of a feisty conversation as to why there is the need for multiple products, in that I mean an installation per school. If we stick to the state sector for the moment for ease, all information is collected for the purpose of running the school (for argument sake). The school ultimately is run for or by the government. So... why is there not one central facility to house and access this data, rather than 1 installation per school. As someone that has worked with databases all his life, one critical thing I know is that data at the core level is just that.. data - facts and figures. If we have it in one format, one location, the data is there once (you database lovers will know - duplication is a no no!), it is maintained once, and by one source, and the is no need to make it transferable, because it won't get transferred anywhere! We don't have multiple products for the DVLA database floating around. We don't (soon) have multiple systems for patient management for each hospital all over the please (note this is not an argument for how badly that was implemented)...

 

I await the tirade of abuse to follow...

[marshharrier]

IMHO I don't agree with the current drive to centralise everything. Of course there are benefits but those benefits are the only one's that are being pushed at the moment. Centralisation (because) of scale always leads to one thing - MASSIVE companies/organisations (because they are the only ones able to afford to build the infrastructure).

 

So if you want EVERYTHING to be done/controlled by the world's biggest companies, centralisation is for you. It really is that simple (unless in my point above it is the government that provides the central piece!)

 

To give a contra view, colleagues of mine up in Hull a few years back, had their school flooded (under 4ft of water). Their entire IT infrastructure was ruined including all the DATA on SIMS (I realise this would seem to support off-site centralisation ... but hear me out)! They were using one or two niche service providers that were hosted in the cloud whose services were unaffected by the chaos and which the school were able to continue to rely on. (In fact those services proved to be a lifeline).

 

The point I'm making is that it is good to have data in more than one place in my opinion. A single point/location/service/provider which could fail (and they all do at some point) is NOT a good idea. Having your systems spread about builds resilience as long as it's easy to integrate those systems when necessary, and means none of those providers get too big for their boots and that they concentrate on making their products as good as they can be in the market.

 

At the moment, all we're hearing is that "Everything in one place, or in one system, is a good thing" because it's an easy argument to present and it's easy for the school! I'd like to see more emphasis put on the benefits of multiple products, locations, services and providers. Where the school doesn't come to a grinding halt because one system is having problems, and NOT being held to ransom because the ONE system has become so big you cannot do without it.

[localzuk]

Do I dare throw into the mix at this stage of a feisty conversation as to why there is the need for multiple products, in that I mean an installation per school. If we stick to the state sector for the moment for ease, all information is collected for the purpose of running the school (for argument sake). The school ultimately is run for or by the government. So... why is there not one central facility to house and access this data, rather than 1 installation per school. As someone that has worked with databases all his life, one critical thing I know is that data at the core level is just that.. data - facts and figures. If we have it in one format, one location, the data is there once (you database lovers will know - duplication is a no no!), it is maintained once, and by one source, and the is no need to make it transferable, because it won't get transferred anywhere! We don't have multiple products for the DVLA database floating around. We don't (soon) have multiple systems for patient management for each hospital all over the please (note this is not an argument for how badly that was implemented)...

 

I await the tirade of abuse to follow...

 

Schools are ultimately run by the government, yes, but the government has little say in their day to day running, and often they don't have any idea what a school wants or needs.

 

Every school is different, and as such, centralising something like that just seems like shooting yourself in the foot. It would remove the flexibility needed within schools to change things from day to day.

[GrumbleDook]

@GREED - we are talking about MIS - Management Information Systems ... and cue lengthy discussion about the difference between data and information.

 

The database is one thing .. the tools which make it useful to the school is another matter. Each school will want to use it in slightly different ways. Functionality again.

[oxide54]

@GREED - we are talking about MIS - Management Information Systems ... and cue lengthy discussion about the difference between data and information.

 

The database is one thing .. the tools which make it useful to the school is another matter. Each school will want to use it in slightly different ways. Functionality again.

 

agreed. same as managed vs vanilla. different strokes for different folks.

[EdWhittaker]

@Ed - Sounds good as long as the new wonder-MIS producer doesn't get grandiose ideas of power and ruling the world (like someone else we know).

 

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

 

Indeed this is true , we've all read Orwell's Animal Farm; that's why the company needs to have community interest (CIC) status. This guarantees that all profits are re-invested for the benefit of the (education) community and cannot be distributed to shareholders.

 

My idea FWIW is that the Government build the product you suggest i.e. the framework/backbone and then let everyone else build the components. That way you'd have a guarantee that the framework manufacturer wouldn't walk over the component manufacturers when the temptation became too strong.

 

in an ideal world, yes. In this world, if it was managed by the government

a) it would take 8 years to complete

b) cost hundreds of millions of pounds

c) be abandoned as unworkable 6 months after launch

The government's track record on managing IT projects is appalling.

[jamesb]

in an ideal world, yes. In this world, if it was managed by the government

a) it would take 8 years to complete

b) cost hundreds of millions of pounds

c) be abandoned as unworkable 6 months after launch

The government's track record on managing IT projects is appalling.

 

d) be used to check for potential 'terrorist' suspects being educated at our schools so they could be picked up early

[GREED]

@GrumbleDook: Thank you for that definition, I could have used you 3 months ago when I was completing my degree in information systems

(I'm kidding, I appreciate your thoughts!)

 

@ everyone else above - We are all talking in ideal situations here, so saying one ideal situation above others will or will not work is a little off topic. Every school working differently - in this IDEAL world we all want, is rubbish and a poor reflection on education if you go somewhere and get one thing and somewhere else and you get something else. Again, real world we know this to be totally true, but too much freedom of choice opens up both opportunities for innovation, as much as wedges for diversity (in a bad way).

[localzuk]

@ everyone else above - We are all talking in ideal situations here, so saying one ideal situation above others will or will not work is a little off topic. Every school working differently - in this IDEAL world we all want, is rubbish and a poor reflection on education if you go somewhere and get one thing and somewhere else and you get something else. Again, real world we know this to be totally true, but too much freedom of choice opens up both opportunities for innovation, as much as wedges for diversity (in a bad way).

 

Disagree vehemently. Every child is different, and has their education tailored for them. So, it stands to reason that every grouping of children is different, and as such the school that is teaching them is different to other schools.

 

Saying that being taught differently in different places is a bad thing is ridiculous, and akin to going back 50 years in the education system.

[GREED]

Disagree vehemently. Every child is different, and has their education tailored for them. So, it stands to reason that every grouping of children is different, and as such the school that is teaching them is different to other schools.

 

Saying that being taught differently in different places is a bad thing is ridiculous, and akin to going back 50 years in the education system.

 

So... depending on the school you/your children go to, urgo where you live, you should have a different (lower) standard of education.

[localzuk]

So... depending on the school you/your children go to, urgo where you live, you should have a different (lower) standard of education.

 

Why does different mean lower to you? Should we all drive the same type of car? Eat the same food? Wear the same clothes? Different means 'personalised and tailored to the needs of the people in question' to me...

[GREED]

Why does different mean lower to you? Should we all drive the same type of car? Eat the same food? Wear the same clothes? Different means 'personalised and tailored to the needs of the people in question' to me...

 

When it comes to education, we are in a world now where a qualification are being devalued (and because when it comes to your first or next job, qualifications mean something, not always the education behind it) with all the changes in the qualification structure. My learners in 6 months can achieve a diploma. It took me (somewhat) longer to achieve that. It is no way the same level or standard due to these changes, but on paper it says the same. The standards here have been significantly clouded.

 

When it comes to education, do not misinterpret - in no way shape or form am I suggesting that the education method is not tailored to suit an individual's needs, but I am suggesting that the quality of that education should be standard (hense the word standard used above) regardless of your conditions, location or school.

[localzuk]

When it comes to education, do not misinterpret - in no way shape or form am I suggesting that the education method is not tailored to suit an individual's needs, but I am suggesting that the quality of that education should be standard (hense the word standard used above) regardless of your conditions, location or school.

 

Then why are you talking about a 'centralised' solution which cannot be tailored to individual needs? Monolithic systems are not flexible.

 

You can't have it both ways - flexible education with flexible systems to back that up or a rigid 'everyone gets treated the same' with rigid pre-determined systems.

[GREED]

Then why are you talking about a 'centralised' solution which cannot be tailored to individual needs? Monolithic systems are not flexible.

 

You can't have it both ways - flexible education with flexible systems to back that up or a rigid 'everyone gets treated the same' with rigid pre-determined systems.

 

As a teacher/trainer, my teachings rely on my experience, ability and knowledge. Information and its use are used as support mechanisms, nothing more. My learners get an individual, tailored experience based on the information recorded about them that can be used by my organisation and selected other support services (connexions for example), all talking the same language and using (essentually) the same system.

[localzuk]

As a teacher/trainer, my teachings rely on my experience, ability and knowledge. Information and its use are used as support mechanisms, nothing more. My learners get an individual, tailored experience based on the information recorded about them that can be used by my organisation and selected other support services (connexions for example), all talking the same language and using (essentually) the same system.

 

Do you work in a school? Training is a LOT different to dealing with the education of hundreds of children, whilst maintaining their behaviour, welfare and keeping them motivated.

 

An example for you. We now use a custom written merit tracking system for our school, as the system provided within SIMS.net isn't flexible enough and doesn't allow us to track the level of detail required in order to provide the best motivation to our children, and to be able to keep track of minor, low level, behaviour issues (eg. the system tracks every lesson whether they have their equipment, if they've done their homework, are in uniform etc...). All this data is not directly 'teaching' based, but allows teachers to tailor their lessons better to that child's needs.

 

This system works great for us, but, say, for a primary school it would be of no use. The kids don't move around classes, their is no need to track equipment etc...

[GREED]

To answer your first question, I work with scores of 16-19+ age groups on foundation learning programmes, not totally alien to the school environment. I worked 7 years within schools so I am aware of how everything works.

 

HOWEVER...

 

I am holding my hands up and your second paragraph has merit (parden the pun!) in that this aspect I had not considered, and is an excellent example and thank you for sharing. I am always pleased to have pointed out where my arguments fall down, and this is a perfect example.

[GrumbleDook]

@localzuk the fact that you have a second data source is a fine example of where SIF comes in horizontally. The student and staff details are the sort of things transferred round via SIF between the MIS and your merits system. If we have been talking about a single common standard of database then the 'extra' information which is relating to how your school works is not likely to go into it is it?

[localzuk]

@localzuk the fact that you have a second data source is a fine example of where SIF comes in horizontally. The student and staff details are the sort of things transferred round via SIF between the MIS and your merits system. If we have been talking about a single common standard of database then the 'extra' information which is relating to how your school works is not likely to go into it is it?

 

I can see the advantage of SIF, believe me. I just can't justify the cost in my mind. As someone who has developed these custom systems for our school, I would have zero chance turning around to my manager and saying 'we want a ZIS and need to sort out a SIF agent or 2, it'll cost us £1000+'. It just won't happen, I'd be expected instead to come up with a solution like I have now which polls the system periodically for data I want - for free.

[Sivadam]

I thought that these Forums did not support any particular MIS and that blatant advertising etc was not allowed.

So why have the MIS Forums now become sponsored by a company producing a MIS?

Maybe they should now put this out to tender and sell out to the highest bidder!

[localzuk]

I thought that these Forums did not support any particular MIS and that blatant advertising etc was not allowed.

So why have the MIS Forums now become sponsored by a company producing a MIS?

Maybe they should now put this out to tender and sell out to the highest bidder!

 

Supporting and advertising aren't the same thing. If Capita wanted to advertise here, I'm sure they could've asked! The site carries adverts by RM at times too, should that not be allowed either, simply because they make an MIS?

[scholarpack]

Sivadam - all of the other forums have a sponsor that do this - Unix CIPA filter for example..there are other filters available but they paid a little more and got more exposure as a result...isn't this the point of sponsorship?

[creese]

The link doesn't work anyway.