mthomas08

I wouldn't touch Civica. We have them. One problem after another. It is our worst system by far. I pushed for Cunninghams but the money and time ran out. We regretted that decision..... badly... Biometrics issues. Till issues. Vending problems. Generally I'm disappointed how the migration went and their support seem to be inconsistent. One guy knows his stuff and the others haven't got a clue. I've gone through periods of no response to calls or emails for weeks.

Yeah we had this the year before. It does fix itself... annoying yes.. nothing people can do.. Tell staff to blame Google and leave it be. Annoying but we can't do anything about it unless you ask people to cut the Google traffic.

Message sent. Don't think we're alowed to openly say company X is good. I think I got a slight slapped wrist some years ago.

Ours I believe is about £8600 a year for the full package. 1GB plus a backup. Lightspeed filtering. DNS hosting. Telephone 3CX system. Email spam filtering. Firewall etc and support. And damn good support, they are very quick to get back to us and make changes we need. Also get on site support within 20-30 minutes for emergencies. Up time must be about 99.99% - they rarely go down. We have around 1300 students 150 staff and 1000+ devices galore and tons of Cloud services.

Or 'hate change' oh and course..... stuck in a long term contract.. Which tends to be main reasons. But yeah.. I do see the point you're making. We could say the same thing with say... Civica... a total nightmare but 'its what we know' plus a bit more short term expensive required to leave.

DfE needs to come down hard on IT overall, not just about the MIS systems. How many of us could potentially be crippled as to something simple.. a server failure.. a backup failure... we get run over and are things documented.. are the servers or switches hanging on a knife edge.. what about broadband... filtering... firewalls.. I find this Bromcom reliability a headache.. but I do feel for the technical team facing this nightmare. On another note: A rival MIS sent me an email today. Completely attacking Bromcom.. I thought it had been worded by a disgruntled customer.. but nope.. an actual rival to Bromcom. Completely unprofessionally written. Not a company I have experience with.. not one of the big 3.. which might explain..... the wording............

I can't speak for others like Arbor, but SIMs wasn't exactly any better... and one main reason it had any kind of reliability is because of the work I put in and how I planned updates. Updated during around holiday periods - to make sure all equipment updated fine. Plus we would test key areas. Avoid deploying when released due to patches to fix the updates. I won't discuss the times when an updated patch.. to fix an updated patch.. to fix another updated patch.. to fix the updated release. All that before I get calls from Data Manager/Attendance/Exams about a glitch they have needs an URGENT patch and here it is. Which reboots SIMs and kicks users out.... The non urgent ones would be done remotely at home.. Even worse when the patches didn't even fix their problems...... UGH!! As much as Bromcom having the performances issues are a headache... I do not miss SIMs at all...

Yeah.. looks like the weekend work didn't resolve the issue unless it's a different problem and bad timing.

Frustrating I know.. causing us a head ache. As long as they do keep trying to avoid these kind of issues I will let them off. I actually was thinking when we got in how reliable Bromcom had been for us in 2025.

Grew up loving the originals, think I'm going to really enjoy this. As for Ted - I loved the first one.

I don't know how a filtering system will detect such things unless they get people flagging content. As for 'who decides' I'd like to think people will do their best to present the facts. Flagging something as a lie without a shred of evidence will be the problem. If the system is constantly making mistakes, I'd like to think changes will occur to fix the problem. Take Covid conspiracies, anti vaxxers and climate deniers. Are we all going to pretend they have a large amount of evidence to back them up? Again - I want experts talking to me. The ones providing the stats.. the numbers.. the facts.. scientific evidence. I'm still on Twitter, I don't know why.. and those 3 conspiracies are backed up by Streamers and YouTubers and random blue tick accounts (now people in power). While the experts are providing decades of scientific data. and pushed aside. Now, things like this are pretty easy to call out. Yes there are things much more harder to determine. This isn't just about labelling something true or false, something without a label has simply not been checked either way. Will the system be perfect? It isn't at the moment but there's certainly progress made over the years.

Different factors.. pros and cons. If you have good responsible staff and damages are rare, then laptops are useful - especially if your classrooms are built for them. If setup for desktops like us - sticking to desktops makes sense. We gave teachers laptops left over from the DfE and they were more of a nuisance compared to desktops by far. Even though desktops out number our laptops 10-1. We've had lost chargers - to the point we have none left. Not cheap unless you find non branded (then we need 7 different types). Damaged screens and keyboards aren't cheap not forgetting repair time. Then we have complaints because they want to plug in equipment and some models are HDMI only.. or VGA only.. or not enough USB slots.. Dead batteries... a major problem. Most of our laptops are onboard.. That's before we discuss price differences. We spend about £250 per PC and our oldest are about 11 years old and I can't see us replacing them for another 2-3 years. Think our oldest laptop is about 7-8 years old and on their last legs. Damaged or dead batteries within 4-5 years = scrapped. My previous job had laptops instead of desktops because we were built for it. The classrooms didn't have much equipment at the time but we still had the occasional VGA lead damaged. Stolen laptops.. lost laptops.. damaged laptops.. and generally purchased 20-30 laptops a year to cover replacements (for about 100 teachers). I barely have the budget to replace 20-30 PCs annually at the moment to cover 800+ PCS. As for the paper work agreement - I'd list everything possible and even double sided. Mention the AUP and school policies. Although it isn't an official contract, it does encourage staff to think about it. Simple things like: Work device - use appropriately. Assigend to you - not yours to keep. Not to allow family members to use the laptop. Laptop encryption - keep the password secure. If using in public, please keep the screen out of view particularly when containing personal details. Do not leave unlocked/unattended especially in public. Although limited access - do not attempt to install anything. Any problems - contact IT support. Looks like people have covered most things, just need to word it all in a nice professional manner.

Key point right there. We banned phones maybe 7 years ago and rarely get them in our door. Pre-ban = every 2-3 weeks or so we get dragged in to an investigation. Why? because it may have happened on site = school responsibility. Photos. Videos. Social media. Parents. Police. Social workers etc. 99.9% of that gone. Should we educate them better? absolutely but not my role. We can all say it shouldn't be like this, but it is. I shouldn't be sitting here doing 50% of what I do just to avoid that 1% chance.. but .. it is the way of things. The mobile ban didn't magically fix everything, it did however cut down the issues directly relating to phones. Considering how behaviour hit meltdown in the last 2 years, I think it removed all doubt. Not every school is the same. Some don't need it. Some might try other things. Considering the amount of visitors we have to help improve our problems, I don't think the mobile ban has been questioned.

"As pupils arrive at the school, they are greeted by staff who then watch each and every child put their phone in the lockable, portable pouches." This one line makes me think.. there's possibly a bit of PR dishonesty here. So a teacher watches each and every individual child place their phones in pouches? We ban phones here and it's not exactly a massive problem. The kids are rarely seen with them out and we didn't rely on 'expensive' pouches. We tend to have money at the end of the year but... well.. we woulnd't be wasting it on something like this.

Wait.. you guys have PCs capable of this stuff?

Can't remember the exact amount but our 10 iPads cost under £3K and we signed up for Mosyle. -Need ownership of the Apple site to download apps, also contains our purchased iPads. This was daunting because no one had ownership of it. I spent weeks trying to prove who I am. -Setup all the profiles configs through Mosyle Not perfect but pretty good.

This is why people went a bit mad at SIMs for trying to force 3 year contracts out of the blue. Since then, their general attitude towards customers has been poor. Good faith is gone. They even tried the culture of fear, don't leave SIMs.. it will be too much hard work.. create unknowns.. stick with what you know. Instead of trying to advertise their own product, it was.. please don't leave us... it will give you a headache and annoy you. Then this fiasco just makes it worse. Schools are lucky to have people like us, keeping ourselves in the loop with the market and customer treatment.. I passed a lot of this information to SLT when we left SIMs. Oh and EduGeek is a gift from god (admins) because without this place.. how many of us wouldn't know.

Legal advice is a must. You're in the exact situation I feared at the time, so I chased.. chased.. AND chased to make sure we had our contract cancelled. They even sent a renewal.............. They didn't respond. They didn't send us the cancellation acknowledgement. Even after having the discussion with someone about our cancellation, at least we had our email trails to prove it. Luckily we didn't go through the whole "you're forced in to a contract"... otherwise our SBM would have fought it to the end, he really is clued up on the legal side of things.

That's actually a good starting point and something I was thinking about yesterday. What we need is something much more detailed and a point rating. Your rating gets graded and off to the DfE. Someone with power and the ability to not 'attack' your school.. but to say.. look you need to take this a bit more serious. We don't expect you fix this within 6 months like an Ofsted inspection, but we need you to work towards it within 3-5 years. You do the review again after 12 months and progress will be seen. You can lie about it, but well.. if you need to do that... Currently doing cyber security review and it shows a score. Pretty good, but only covers 15% of the DfE Digitial Standards. Our score isn't great, but not poor.... something like this being presented to SLT and Governors should be the norm. I'll be adding this to my governor report which they get during end of the year and they do actually read. Obviously with a bit of blurb to understand it or, I'll have to explain it. Just like the finance auditors every April.

Oh I agree, but the official blame would be put on them and stamped with an official seal. Well no, like I said we currently get two finance audits which are done by companies and fully independant of the school. Finance audit is a must have. Taking money aside, the whole idea is that our system is evaluated. Not about telling us to use XYZ, but questioning are we secure or at least trying to be? Due to our failed Ofsted last year, we had to bring in experts to evaluate a lot and one for safeguarding. I had to produce proof of what we block for students/staff and other pieces. I already had everything documented and ready. Just took me about 15 minutes to put it together in an email. Problem is, we're seeing our roles taken serious after people leave or when a catastrophe happens.

Probably me Yeah, Ofsted should evaluate IT being fit for purpose and/or we should be auditted. We have a finance audit, and even get a 2nd opinion company to do it. Our SBM and finance team are anal on making sure it's perfect for every penny. The reports are explained to governors, sometimes the companies present the summary and allow questions. It becomes a big thing - finance dept is effectively shut down during the audit. If IT fails during an exam, student can lose work. If IT fails during lessons, T&L is lost. Considering we can kick up a fuss when students are a couple of minutes late.... what happens when IT fails.. We need to be heavily scrutinised on security, our systems and documentation. That scrutiny should come from governors already, SLT and more. Only part heavily questioned is safeguarding and internet filtering.

Guessing this is why we heard nothing back when we applied for funding. Tiresome.... we have to keep waiting until things are on the edge of death.. to then get questioned as if it's our fault. Perhaps they can dish out some surveys.. and score ratings for us to answer... and 'schemes' which basically mean a fancy survey on a website... then file them under 'don't give a monkeys'.

Silly question but shouldn't the HT be asking the DfE these kind of questions? They should have a full process for schools to follow. I sit here thinking about if we had to shut... well... what about our servers.. our data.. the MIS is Bromcom Cloud. Assuming all the data is to be wiped after the important bits are transferred to other schools. Generally when kids leave here, their data is sent to the other school then put offrole, we don't send work areas to other schools. We disable and delete their accounts (non MIS). So technically.. there's your answer. Data Manager will set them to offrole and once all students are done I would wipe the systems. With Bromcom Cloud, the school will probably be disabled > deleted after the contract expires etc.

Behaviour is a problem, I'd say a bit more rife these days with social media influecing them but I will add.. don't for one second think behaviour was all cushy back in the day. As a kid.... I was rotten. The worst in my primary class (by far) and the other bad kids generally came from similar backgrounds... poverty. I didn't have positive parents pushing me to behave or do well, as long as I didn't give them a headache.. they didn't care. Parents don't support schools enough and never blame themselves, just like my mother. I could talk about some of the kids/friends from secondary.. two went to prison.. few became addicts (drink/drugs)... few more had electronic tags. Again, most of them came from similar backgrounds. With support systems being cut/scrapped, parenting not improving... schools facing the odds... I hope me doing things right gives my daughter a good fighting chance to avoid that life.

This. MIS is not classified as social media or website etc. It's a secure portal and quite crucial for safeguarding. Consent for public bits is a very different thing to consenting for MIS photos. If parents really wanted to remove it, this would be a decision involving the DSL. Teachers and crucial support staff need to identify students. My daughter is in school photos often and other pupils/parents not wanting to be publicised will have their faces filtered out. You can't ID them. Quite a simple thing to do.