pcstru

Under the current 1998 DPA, the school is responsible. Under the new legislation the school will still be responsible! However, there is more emphasis placed on joint responsibility - so the supplier will need to be explicit about what they are processing and why. So when PiXL edge asks for UPN because they are creating unique national identifiers behind the scenes so their software can offer data to other customers when pupils transfer schools, they will need to be absolutely open, honest and transparent about that. You shouldn't be left to find out that as a surprise when you query why their software is demanding UPN or ULN rather than the local admission number.

If that is the case, it is a problem right now, no need to wait for the new regulations before acting (it should be a violation of one or all of : AUP, eSafety, Safeguarding, Professional Conduct etc, assuming you have any of those policies).

Presumably they are a school and Tucasi is acting as a 3rd party supplier so the school is the data controller. So is it significantly different than storing the UPN in a 'cloud' MIS?

Here they send a student to bring their laptop to the desk, with their username and password written on a post-it and stuck to the screen.

Yea oldie core memory.

That seems to relate to the 1998 act, not the new regulations.

Impacts will be from : 1. We will have to prove compliance by keeping records of processing activities, training, breaches and impact/risk assessments. 2. Consent will need to be explicit. 3. Sensitive personal data will need additional protections. 4. We will be legally obliged to inform the ICO of any data breaches. 5. The scope of personal data is expanded and will cover most student, staff, parent and contact data we process. 1. is likely to be a large change for most organisations since it will require a more bureaucracy to set up and maintain the record keeping required. 2 will likely cause schools some headaches, particularly in relation to external systems such as PiXL etc, and there are likely to be some very interesting questions around Google Apps. 3. Is likely to drive any Data Managers with a spreadsheet fetish (i.e. all of them) crazy, 4, seems almost innocent but it is likely you will have some kind of data breach at some point and this really opens up the risk that the organisation is subject to some scrutiny of their compliance by the ICO - in other words those large fines just got a lot closer. 5. Again Data Managers will now have to consider pretty much all of the information they process as personal information and any documents which show analysis against protected attributes (ethnicity, in care etc) will be sensitive personal data. The only way to prove you are controlling processing will be to track instances of the data (track all the spreadsheets).

It is very good and I hope will be helpful in getting our SLT to start to act. I was surprised at : "I was recently at a business event for a major hardware supplier, full of people from the corporate world, and discussions quickly drifted to data protection. Everyone at the event was not only aware of the incoming regulation, but also the majority were clearly worried about the workload required to meet it and generally felt that preparation time was running out." I wonder if companies like Parentpay, PiXL, Kerboodle, SIMS, Bromcom, Smoothwall etc, are actually ahead of the game on this? I suspect some have not started, just like most schools.

Their P value was 0.03 or less, (in other words the chances that the results are just chance is ~1/33 ), so the fact that the study was only 17 patients does not invalidate the fact of a metabolic response in insulin production. I'd agree that the study has a very limited scope but it nicely falsifies the claim you made that any claim to a link between sweeteners and insulin production is "BS" and "an outright lie". That would be worth elaborating on - an actual detailed criticism of the study, but ... you didn't, you just claim it and then move swiftly on. Perhaps in the absence of a detailed critique you might care to share your qualifications or give some other reason why you are an authority readers should believe in preference to Dr's Pepino et al? Looking at your links, the first one is a study of 26 individuals, 13 with diabetes 13 without, the conclusion was : ""These results support the conclusion that sucralose consumption does not adversely affect short-term blood glucose control in indiviudals with diabetes". That is not saying there is no effect on insulin production, just that there is no adverse short term effect.

Really? "When study participants drank sucralose, their blood sugar peaked at a higher level than when they drank only water before consuming glucose. Insulin levels also rose about 20 percent higher. So the artificial sweetener was related to an enhanced blood insulin and glucose response." I'd say that (my link) is a reasonable study which shows there is some correlation, even if the cause is not yet understood.

That's not quite correct. There is a statutory right to reasonable amount of unpaid time off under the Employment Rights Act to allow people to deal with unforeseen matters and emergencies involving a dependant. The slight difficulty is what is "reasonable". Many employers do better than that and have policies which allow paid time off up to a point (usually a few days) after which time can be taken unpaid. I think the thing to do is talk with your manager/employer and agree what time you need and then how much of that would be paid. If you need two weeks off unpaid, they really should not be objecting; how people react to loss varies wildy so some people might even need longer while others turn up for work after a half day off for the funeral.

My condolences. "Typical" very difficult to say - a few days; one or two for a reasonably close relative, 3-5 for a dependant. It can and does vary wildy and is largely at the discretion of the employer. Most try to have a policy to get some consistency so worth checking. It's also something that affects people very differently so some people need more time than others.

It is a clever use of Indirect and named ranges. I suspect you are right it would get unwieldy quite quickly ... but ... mmm.

Given the one button mouse, some kind of apple - perhaps a very early Mac.

Sorry, I think that is as clear as mud! I'll try and knock up an example but not sure how quickly I can do that. If you had an anonomised example you could send (don't need many rows to show how it works), that would help.

The range needs to not change, just the criteria. You probably need to build an intermediate sheet which expands the data into a form which contains a column which contains a compound of the criterias. So if each row has 4 attributes which you can select from (Gender, FSM, On Track, Ethnicity) the new column will contain a concatenation of the criteria, using an IF formula to check if the attribute is required. So lets say we have 4 tabs; the first contains the user input using dropdowns in A1, A2, A3 and A4, from which you can select an attribute or a blank. A5 contains the answer : how many rows match the criteria. The second tab contains your data and the fourth contains the lookups for the dropdown. Tab 3 now contains data+, it has one more column which looks at what is selected in A1, A2 etc and if appropriate, concatenates the relevant attribute for the row into the content of the cell. Then your countif can do the same with it's criteria (create a compound one from the dropdowns) and then hopefully you see that we have a criteria and columns to match against and if rows don't have the criteria they will not be counted so no need to alter the range.

No. Simply Not possible.

I may not be understanding so ... Use data validation to allow users to pick the value in a cell from a list (I usually have a tab called lookups which contains the lists). Your countif's then compare to the value the user selects.

If you are only testing 2 at a time then your test is very likely not replicating what is going on. I'd invite myself to a class to see what is happening or run tests which replicate the actual conditions (i.e. however many simultaneous logins are happening together). One thought : in fixed classrooms teacher seating plans tend to mean students get the same machine but often laptops are pulled from the trolly randomly so students get different ones each lesson. Depending on the set-up you have, setting up a new profile on a machine may be worth avoiding (as much as possible), so having students use the same laptop from week to week can be worth a little bit of effort.

zip drive.

Not sure I'd be in that category but there is a good reason to know vi - it is part of the standard toolset on unix/unix systems (SUS), so you know if you log into any unix system these days (and for the last 30 years), vi will be available.

IMO it is a much bigger undertaking because very distinct, highly configured (detailed, often dependent on individual field attributes), business processes hang off it and, through the MIS, integrate with other processes. Then there are often many years of historical data, the context of which changes year on year - which almost certainly was a challenge to fit into the DB at the time and might be a significant challenge years later as a data transfer exercise. I can't think of another system in a school have the reach and impact of the MIS and the difference in scale is quite significant.

We switched to Bromcom from CMIS/ePortal and are now in our second year. I described the changeover here. Our Admin team seems to like the system as generally do teaching staff. There is a bit of "ah well if we had SIMS we could just copy what other schools are doing" from a few senior leaders - which I think is probably a little naive. I've personally some history with SIMS going back to 1993 but we have never used it here. IMO we made the right choice for the right reasons and I'd expect if we went through the process again, it would be the same result.

Your best bet with Ubuntu 16.04 is to use the development version sourced from the Git repository (instructions here. That will actually work (has for me) but there are some reported issues with MySQL on 16.04 which make it worth keeping the database backed up.

Direct imaging of four planets orbiting the star HR 8799 129 light years away from Earth Simply amazing. We live in very interesting times.