School MIS Systems

[penfold_99]

And as long as they pay hefty licence fee.

 

How do you know it is a hefty licence fee?

[penfold_99]

I'm in the SWGfL and we have had zero word about SIF. Even the Becta MIS report stated that SIF is not mature enough yet, and that the government needs to start mandating standards of interoperability...

 

I presume that you have heard about Merlin? All the accounts are provisioned via SIF.

[localzuk]

I presume that you have heard about Merlin? All the accounts are provisioned via SIF.

 

Heard of it, but know nothing about it.

[EdWhittaker]

How do you know it is a hefty licence fee?

see my post 127

[penfold_99]

SIF between applications I've yet to see other then with a big £££ next to it and more work.

 

Please can you give examples of the type of applications?

 

Besides, why do I want data flowing out of my network into the LA or RBC??

 

If a student joins the school and is FSm and SEN, the schools would want to submit that information as soon as possible to get the additional funding for the pupil premium. That task of submission can be automated.

 

For example schools will want up to date information submitted for FSM as this will effect the pupil premium.

 

Did they improve the security, so it's not a like a hub, sending the data to all rather then to those that are authorised?

 

SIF supports client certificate authentication over SSL.

 

SIF supports targeted event. ie this allows data to move from school a to school b without going to school c or schools d if they are all on the same zone.

Edited November 4, 2010 by penfold_99

[penfold_99]

see my post 127

 

You were talking about the cost of SIMS.net not the cost of a application that SIF enabled SIMS.net. Which is less than £300ish

[scholarpack]

Except for the part where school MIS systems now end up being used by parents, governors, pupils, staff etc via MLEs and 'learning platforms'.

 

Those numbers are very tiny compared to the systems we were talking about earlier. Hundreds/thousands vs millions.

 

Your comment regarding application layer is fine - but this could well be done in an intermediary layer... ORM for example. Why do it via the database?

 

Databases are good..(the best) at it.

 

 

You are avoiding the point that you are limiting them to a single technology.

 

All technologies are limiting in some ways or another. Cassandra isn't a silver bullet, otherwise every MIS provider would be using it. Look how far SchoolTool got without using a proper RDB. Many years later and hardly any headway. Where is SIMS, Serco, isams, Bromcom in this thread anyway??

[localzuk]

Those numbers are very tiny compared to the systems we were talking about earlier. Hundreds/thousands vs millions.

 

 

 

Databases are good..(the best) at it.

 

 

 

 

All technologies are limiting in some ways or another. Cassandra isn't a silver bullet, otherwise every MIS provider would be using it. Look how far SchoolTool got without using a proper RDB. Many years later and hardly any headway. Where is SIMS, Serco, isams, Bromcom in this thread anyway??

 

You are missing the point here. You seem to think I'm evangelising a single technology or something when I'm not. I'm saying that you shouldn't be making third parties work with your database. No getting them to use SQL. Instead, make an API available via an ORM layer. That way, you aren't limiting anyone to a single type of database! You as a developer are then free to make changes to the backend as and when you want.

[PiqueABoo]

That's very spurious argument - we got on without a lot of things.. doesn't mean they're not required now.

 

It's an extremely serious one and I'd be interested to hear what you think is required now that you know we didn't have then (and based on what experience).

 

Technical history did not start this century, IMO there hasn't been that much innovation for long while, there is however a lot of ignorance and wheel-reinvention, and 20 years ago does NOT mean fewer requirements than a modern school MIS. The only thing that's especially new is that it apparently takes the school MIS sector eons to sort out interoperability.. not that standard protocols were especially quick back then, but they were definitely a lot quicker.

Edited November 4, 2010 by PiqueABoo

[GREED]

Technical history did not start this century, IMO there hasn't been that much innovation for long while, there is however a lot of ignorance and wheel-reinvention, and 20 years ago does NOT mean fewer requirements than a modern school MIS. The only thing that's especially new is that it apparently tales the school MIS sector eons to sort out interoperability.. not that standard protocols were especially quick back then, but they were definitely a lot quicker.

 

Well said, and totally agree.

[EdWhittaker]

You were talking about the cost of SIMS.net not the cost of a application that SIF enabled SIMS.net. Which is less than £300ish

 

No I'm not, I'm talking about the fees that Capita charge commercial companies if they want to develop an app that writes to and reads from SIMS.

[GrumbleDook]

No I'm not, I'm talking about the fees that Capita charge commercial companies if they want to develop an app that writes to and reads from SIMS.

 

You don't ... you develop a SIF Agent that reads/writes between your app and the ZIS. There are already SIF Agents out there for SIMS - ZIS interchange. I would recommend you have a good look at the work of SIFA UK.

[localzuk]

You don't ... you develop a SIF Agent that reads/writes between your app and the ZIS. There are already SIF Agents out there for SIMS - ZIS interchange. I would recommend you have a good look at the work of SIFA UK.

 

Who would be running the ZIS? How much does this cost etc...?

[PiqueABoo]

you develop a SIF Agent that reads/writes between your app and the ZIS.

 

So to talk to a MIS somewhere else in the rack or even running on the same OS you need:

 

a) Your app to talk SIF... fair enough, we have to talk something.

b) A ZIS configured and running somewhere.. what resources and supporting apps does that need to run?

c) Your MIS to talk SIF via some nearby "agent".. what resources and supporting apps does that need to run? Do you get those included for nowt or are they yet another cost option coz somehow all those millions just don't quite cover the dev costs.

d) The MIS.

 

Perhaps I'm way off but its got that multi-box (or at least VM) feel, and if it's something local wanting to track students e.g. library system/whatever, that just feels wrong. Does SIF mandate a ZIS for everything i.e. can you bypass that for local stuff?

Edited November 4, 2010 by PiqueABoo

[GrumbleDook]

@piqueaboo and @localzuk ... rather than talk about and describe the whole concept of the use of ZIS to be the go between for a multitude of systems, not just the MIS and a VLE, but your AD, the LA systems, your RBC, etc ... since there are other threads about SIF about ... can you tell me what you don't understand about the ZIS? Why re-invent the wheel by having lots of apps hooking into the MIS (the MIS as it stands now as well as proposals to only have it as a data store) when you can have one, operating to open standards?

 

Remember that you can run your own through something like OpenZIS ... and yes, you may have to pay for SIF Agents to talk between the MIS and the ZIS ... YMMV.

[GrumbleDook]

To be honest ... is anyone actually going to talk about what functionality you want in the MIS? Do you want it to record progress data? do analysis? record attendance? prepare letters? allow staff to see SEN information?

 

All the technical stuff is secondary to user requirements. I said it earlier ... and still we have the the long, elongated discussions about the backend. Once we know what it is needed for *then* start talking about whether modular is best, overlapping data being pointless or needed, about whether having all data in one place or with / without relationships is the work of the devil or beloved by angels (or Richard Dawkins ... depending on preference).

[localzuk]

@piqueaboo and @localzuk ... rather than talk about and describe the whole concept of the use of ZIS to be the go between for a multitude of systems, not just the MIS and a VLE, but your AD, the LA systems, your RBC, etc ... since there are other threads about SIF about ... can you tell me what you don't understand about the ZIS? Why re-invent the wheel by having lots of apps hooking into the MIS (the MIS as it stands now as well as proposals to only have it as a data store) when you can have one, operating to open standards?

 

Remember that you can run your own through something like OpenZIS ... and yes, you may have to pay for SIF Agents to talk between the MIS and the ZIS ... YMMV.

 

Its not a case of failing to understand ZIS. It is a case of understanding, and understanding how it is a complex system which 9/10 times it will be used for simple things, and to do so being charged fees for agents to access our own data. How is that any different from the current system where we have to pay to write back direct?

 

An example. Many schools have bespoke systems of one form or another, created by their internal IT people. If they wished to interact with their MIS via ZIS, according to another post they would need the following:

 

1. Be a member of ZIS UK - £235/335pa

2. Certification of the ZIS agent - £1400 + £300 per year renewal, or £600 if retesting is needed, or £600 if an update is made

 

Do you not see why I find this expensive, to say the least?

 

To be honest ... is anyone actually going to talk about what functionality you want in the MIS? Do you want it to record progress data? do analysis? record attendance? prepare letters? allow staff to see SEN information?

 

All the technical stuff is secondary to user requirements. I said it earlier ... and still we have the the long, elongated discussions about the backend. Once we know what it is needed for *then* start talking about whether modular is best, overlapping data being pointless or needed, about whether having all data in one place or with / without relationships is the work of the devil or beloved by angels (or Richard Dawkins ... depending on preference).

 

The thing is though, that the technical stuff isn't secondary at all. Every school, as I'm sure you'll agree, is different. The way they deal with behaviour, assessment, purchasing, etc... will vary. So, the user requirement is flexibility.

 

Trying to outline a single way of doing this would result in a single monolithic system with a lack of flexibility, like we have now. What some of us are trying to say is simply that the MIS should be a basic system, which allows easy interaction with third party tools in order to provide functionality required. Sure, the MIS provider can provide options for various ways of doing things, but they should be optional in their entirety. The customer shouldn't need a complex ZIS system simply to access their data. They shouldn't need it to go to and from an LA ZIS server. They certainly shouldn't need to pay fees!

Edited November 5, 2010 by localzuk

[EdWhittaker]

They certainly shouldn't need to pay fees!

 

Hear, hear!!

[scholarpack]

It's an extremely serious one and I'd be interested to hear what you think is required now that you know we didn't have then (and based on what experience).

Technical history did not start this century, IMO there hasn't been that much innovation for long while, there is however a lot of ignorance and wheel-reinvention, and 20 years ago does NOT mean fewer requirements than a modern school MIS. The only thing that's especially new is that it apparently takes the school MIS sector eons to sort out interoperability.. not that standard protocols were especially quick back then, but they were definitely a lot quicker.

 

Internet? Requirements are now web based. They weren't 20 years ago.

Ease of access - who had access to an MIS 20 years ago? About 10 people. Now? Every teacher, parent, governor and LEA bod.

[penfold_99]

Its not a case of failing to understand ZIS. It is a case of understanding, and understanding how it is a complex system which 9/10 times it will be used for simple things, and to do so being charged fees for agents to access our own data. How is that any different from the current system where we have to pay to write back direct?

 

I do think it is a case of not understanding the benefits for SIF, as you are seeing only the technical side and not the removal of administrative burden from the school which will out weigh the cost.

 

 

An example. Many schools have bespoke systems of one form or another, created by their internal IT people. If they wished to interact with their MIS via ZIS, according to another post they would need the following:

 

1. Be a member of ZIS UK - £235/335pa

2. Certification of the ZIS agent - £1400 + £300 per year renewal, or £600 if retesting is needed, or £600 if an update is made

 

Do you not see why I find this expensive, to say the least?

 

You wouldn't need to join SIF to purchase SIF based products.

There are multi use agents which can interface with a variety of database systems that you can configure with a set of business rules.

 

The cost for a MIS agent, Access to a ZIS, Multiple use Agent would be under £1000~ which is a heck of a lot less than capita charge.

 

The thing is though, that the technical stuff isn't secondary at all. Every school, as I'm sure you'll agree, is different. The way they deal with behaviour, assessment, purchasing, etc... will vary. So, the user requirement is flexibility.

 

Trying to outline a single way of doing this would result in a single monolithic system with a lack of flexibility, like we have now. What some of us are trying to say is simply that the MIS should be a basic system, which allows easy interaction with third party tools in order to provide functionality required. Sure, the MIS provider can provide options for various ways of doing things, but they should be optional in their entirety. The customer shouldn't need a complex ZIS system simply to access their data. They shouldn't need it to go to and from an LA ZIS server. They certainly shouldn't need to pay fees!

 

You are still seeing interoperability with a MIS as a 1-1 relationship, the MIS doesn't hold all the information about a student in the school.

 

Data is stored in multiple systems like MIS, cashless catering, Active Directory etc. The key to interoperability to having all these systems talking the same language (SIF) so when data charges in one system is updated in another and when you need all the information for a student you can get instead of have to go to each system and export it and then merge all the data together.

[penfold_99]

The customer shouldn't need a complex ZIS system simply to access their data. They shouldn't need it to go to and from an LA ZIS server. They certainly shouldn't need to pay fees!

 

Hear, hear!!

 

You need to take a step back.

If you purchased a solution with a licence fee of say £2000 and you save the equivalent of £6000 in working hours.

 

That solution would be better than implementing a solution for £0 and only saving £2500 in time saved.

[localzuk]

You seem to have missed the bit about inhouse built software that I mentioned.

[EdWhittaker]

If you purchased a solution with a licence fee of say £2000 and you save the equivalent of £6000 in working hours.

 

That solution would be better than implementing a solution for £0 and only saving £2500 in time saved.

 

This is true. However my experience is that quite often school management are unable to grasp this point. There is a tendency to view things done by school staff as being 'free'. Teacher's time, admin staff time (indeed IT staff's time) is very rarely costed. So whereas I can often show that using our product, for example, will save, say, two hours per day admin time, 'Mavis in the office' is still employed by the school, still has to be paid so the actual saving in real cash terms is effectively zero. I can show how pastoral leaders in school can work more efficiently and be more effective in their job. Cuts no ice with school management, because it does not free up any extra cash in the budget.

[PiqueABoo]

can you tell me what you don't understand about the ZIS?

 

Why it is perceived as a sterling solution for interoperability between internals app, as opposed to interoperability with external orgs (well assuming it is a good solution for that).

 

IMNSHO had school MIS been done "right" in the first place they'd have looked around the wider industry a bit, thus factored in potential interoperability from the start and used that abstraction layer localzuk keeps on plugging... on one side the DB/whatever, in the middle access control + some of the biz-logic + whatever fits this variant of MIS, and on the other side a client messaging API... and with that adding another tarted up subset of that messaging API to the repertoire i.e. SIF or anything else, wouldn't be that big a deal.

 

You are still seeing interoperability with a MIS as a 1-1 relationship, the MIS doesn't hold all the information about a student in the school. Data is stored in multiple systems like MIS, cashless catering, Active Directory etc.

 

Me too, but can my evening scheduled AD user updater app do the obvious and go talk directly to the MIS via SIF to get a bunch of pupil/staff deltas since a given timestamp, or does it have to bounce that through a ZIS. Apps responding to a common messaging API is fair enough, but I'm really struggling to see why a) any app within an organisation would need or want another app to write to it, b) why an app would need to be quickly notified of changes made in another one, c) why you'd need a independent ZIS traffic-cop function to police relatively simple internal interoperability.

 

when you need all the information for a student you can get instead of have to go to each system and export it and then merge all the data together.

 

That easy huh? Something has to run round the systems getting "all the information".. what is it?

Edited November 5, 2010 by PiqueABoo

[GrumbleDook]

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 a few things have to be said.

 

SIMS is the largest player for a number of reasons. Yes, we can all sling mud at anti-competitive practices, monopoly, significant log-in, fear of change, etc ...

 

But remember that what was there in the beginning is not what we have now. When Phil and co wrote their reports system do you honestly thought about what we have now? And as it has expanded, merged in / bought up other products then of course it will evolve. And this has been done because schools wanted the functionality and the tech has fitted round it.

 

Yes there have been major rebuilds, but that has been done to add extra functionality and to improve the performance and backend.

 

Other MIS are in a better position and yet they too are operating on a pretty similar model of keeping control over their database unless you are a trusted partner and trying to sort out ways of agreeing to exchange data.

 

Do I think that any system we are talking about, whether through direct access to a single database with modules connecting to it, or through SIF or other options ... do I think they will be suitable for everyone? Of course not ... heck, we are back to Vi and Emacs again. And as much as folk saying the technology is important ... sure ... but functionality comes first. If I can get a census return done on a system is that ticking a box (in pencil anyway)? If I know that the tool for that is well supported and can be fixed if the data coming out is wrong that that is the tick written in ink. Reports ... recording progress ... attendance ...

 

We are always going to have arguments about the GUI. Do the users really care that much whether the GUI is on top of MySQL or MSSQL? Not really.

 

They will care about how easy it is to adapt and change ... when there is a need to change ... so we come back to the development due to changes from Govt or other key folk (eg exam boards) and how well this will be done and at what cost. Coders cost money to feed, clothe and house, as do support. If we are talking about the smaller companies on the market then they might want some protection to know that the creators of the the DB they connect to will get things sorted so that *their* product works.

 

But ... I think this is getting into a circular argument now.

 

SIF is key for data interchange with external groups and can be darned helpful for internal stuff ... you can say the same about Shibboleth too.

There will always be other solutions which people come up with ... fine ... but if you want to stretch to a few logical conclusions, SIF and SIF Agents are about getting standards sets of data out of the data base and appropriately shared in the simplest possible fashion. If you want to jump forward 3-5 years ... then we may be talking about just the database holding the data and the API being the next gen of SIF to go into all these wonderful modules folk are thinking about.

 

Does any of this make any difference to the tasks and functionality people want? No ... it should be the need for certain functions that drive it. For some schools it is the situation that using a particular MIS gives them a kick start on how to do certain things with data because they don't have much of a clue, so they are following a set path to make life easier ... even make it more efficient ... but once a school is in the swing of things they will want to look at the choice of how they use data deciding on the product used.

 

Why do you think folk choose to buy PARS or Bromcom to sit on top of SIMS? Or spend a lot of time working on ePortal? Because they are driving the choice and use of the MIS by the need of the school.

 

If someone can tell me what the next big change is for MIS with regards to functionality, then that will be snapped up by MIS providers far quicker than any perceived preference of technology.