GREED

I think like any VLE, it will be what you make of it. Do you know if your content is SCORM compliant currently, in a standard that can be packaged and moved. The bottom line is there is no magic button to press and everything appears in your new system. One of the keys too will be linking it up to your MIS, which I guess you currently do with Frog? To get your timetable, courses and students in there.

It is a sensible precaution to have. It would allow your school to a) tidy up past data (a concern!) and b) give the SMT a buffer to say 'we will be publishing comments in 6 months, so learn to write decent comments'.

Agreed. There is a bit of a missed part on the part of SIMS there. Another MIS I formerly worked for * has a public and private comments section for behavior (and markbook feedback incidentally).

While I agree it is important to have the option, is that not a user training issue? Not using a potentially very useful communication tool because teachers need to be told what is and is not appropriate to write?

And with schools using games in the classroom being all the rage... apparently... why not!

In that case I wish Google maps would follow suit... when I am out and about and need a map and wait an eternity to download the next section via 2G...

In London, and complies fully with DPA. As has been stated, no information presented is not already available to the public and does not specify individuals. I was speaking to one of their chiefs not long ago, and this report initiative came up. Interesting to see and hear peoples reactions. What do you think? Is well timed for you all to go scope them out at BETT!

I have a suspicion this was the point.

Such as?

So at the end of the 3 years one would assume the family owns the iPad... at £360 over 3 years taken depreciation into account more than covers the cost... or is this in fact a money making scheme. Whoever thought this was a good idea in the first place I hope is considering their position...

I'd like to keep this post highlighted somewhere for about 2 years time, when the Data Exchange project is complete and all data movement is actuated though it including CTF and Census... and why not supplier migration. CTF follows no common standards, other than the major suppliers follow it. It is not ISB complient by a long way, which is what the Data Exchange is being built to out of interest (and the Exams A2C project, and any future government education standard). It is and always will be limited in scope, which is why it will disappear in a couple of years (see above). SIF will be the way forward (finally) when all of this is online.

Only if he says something wrong... but lets face it he knows a lot more than me! It has never worked right in the years I have tried to use it. Slow and cumbersome.

I will certainly pop along and cheer you on

So basically the same three more or less that is always has been I cannot say I agree and agree with Tony, the ones to watch are people like Scholarpack and Arbor, particularly as they are less tied to legacy systems as is inherent with the older players (AL maybe less so with Progresso, i'm keep a watchful eye there too I think this will be a big year for them).

Anything in particular or do I need to dig out 'You Sexy Thing' for the Excel PA? :D:D

I agree totally Richard. It makes me nervous dealing with suppliers who are cagey or even outright lie (by a long way) about their customer base. It proves a point I have been making for over a year now is that there is genuine choice now for MIS supply, and schools are starting to realise that. Great news.

Surely only needs another FOI...

@matt40k how did you arrive at the % increase/decrease? I'd be interested to know the raw data from 2010 and 2012 to show trends.

There we go... how is that for service!

@vikpaw that would be Ian @penfold_99 and as of the end of this month me too! @Stevenreader I assume you have logged this with the SchoolsICT helpdesk. I would guess so as you have as you say the team are on the case. I'm sure Ian will have it cracked for you quickly.

When I was a trainer for apprentices I had to be registered with IfL and had to pay (my company at the time decided they would not pay despite it being part of my job... less said there the bettwe). For that I had to submit CPD records each year. I got no direct benefit, didn't do any direct training or skills improvement, and it was clear it was very easy to say you did CPD hours without technically doing any... not that I am saying I did or any of my colleagues did of course. There are so so many questions around how this will work...

Oh my good golly god we have go go there Ian!

My mistake.

I do think I have met you either @vikpaw Oh wait... Capita conference 2008... 4 am in the bar... yes we have met

Or if we all know in advance... about 10.15am