matt40k

Speak for yourself, last paragraph:

I'll be interesting in your post @pcstru, are you thinking in terms of ContactPoint? IE a central data holding alot of data? My point was, it already exists, it's just automating the processes so manual files aren't used. It just doesn't seem right that flat files are used for such a critical system nowadays.

I see your blog @GREED and I raise you: DfE big plans for big data – Matt Smith

Should install SQL 2012 if it's the latest, is that the latest @Ghostgame?

Gen 1 products are always going to be... problematic. Out of interest, what's the cost of p&p to the UK?

Kinda, run the installer on the iso\disc, left hand menu pick upgrade edition, usual next, next, next kinda thing. Key is pre-filled in the disc\iso image too. Don't think it needs a reboot either.

Install express, then upgrade the edition to standard when you've got the license, it's a 5 min job.

I think if your issuing staff with laptops, which they use a home. It's less problematic. The USB stick idea is a pretty horrid idea. The RemoteApps is a brilliant way to get around the BYOD problem.

Check what they want to do, most things they'll want you can do offline, like writing reports or timetabling, then sync it back. I think I'd be getting worried if teachers are taking lessons registers whilst at home.

For me that epic pen that the pro has, has stopped me getting a RT version.

Umm, seriously? What's wrong with the software developer building a template device? Are we forgetting about the Google Nexus range? It's no different then a new hardware manufacturer appearing, just means you need to release a better (in some way) device. As for "iPad killer" quotes, what, have you never seen a sales pitch? Apparently if I buy this sports car I'll be beating women off with a stick because it'll turn me into fit underwear super model, got it take it all with a pitch of salt.

Was my first thought too, right after how quickly can I clear my credit card

I'm in tears of laughter.

Most people valid against the LA system - seeming as duff addresses cause suspense in B2B.

Where are you in the UK?

"Step 1. Breathe."

Oh please do!! Just make sure it's a rainy Monday when you do!! Serious question, why do people go away on holiday to somewhere sunny when it's sunny here, why not when it's raining, or are you doing the rain dance at the airport?

For the uneducated this is actually a demo - we're going to follow this article up with @GREED getting mugged and his holiday stolen to demostrate how social media can be used to extract sensitive information and why it's important to follow those boring old polices.... honest gov, they've not gone off topic

Shall we nominate @GREED to attend and report back?

Which year? (Sorry couldn't resist!)

Seriously @PhilNeal, why have you still got a menu option for a Nova-T4 routine? I was told this was going over 2 and half years ago!!

God that is depressing, still got schools doing paper registers and sending it to the main office!! Still that's cultural rather then technical, worried yet @GREED about the DX project?

@PhillipHamlyn Quite, I don't see any head teacher letting some big brother update his system without his\her approval first. But what is being updated? From what I can see, "CTF" pupil transfers will still be manual, security wise, you'd need the accept\reject going forward as a form of security if nothing else! So what would they want to push back? Updates to the "CTF" and about the pupils history - i.e. they sent the "file" without historical attendance marks, well technically that data owner (master) would be the old school, so yes, they would, technically, have a right to update it. Would this need to go into suspense? Surely not. If this included a updated mode of transport or ethnicity, would it need to update the new MIS, well unless it was blank, no. Other aspects that might be pushed would be targets - based on data from aggregated data from a data of schools. I don't see that as an "issue" per-say - also things like QAN data, getting it automatically might be a really good thing. Other areas might be FSM, I don't see that as an issue, a school can't argue if a student is applicable if the government is the one who says if they are or not. For me, the key issue is a strong audit trial, both at the DfE and more importantly at the school MIS end. I can't see anything being implemented that would warrant suspense at this time nor in the medium term, perhaps not even into the distance future! So I don't see the terrors of B2B suspense processing should be coming into the data exchange discussion when talking about it in regards to schools. DfE will be another matter, but I suspect a lot of those errors will disappear as time goes on, ensuring everyone is singing from the same hymn book will cure a lot of problems - like everyone is using the same address validation service, the latest lookups etc. You sir should be shot at dawn for even saying email!

I think you might be getting the data exchange and the data warehouse merged. Data Exchange should be just that, data in > data out. S2S\CTF wise, data in, data out. Maybe validation on the data in part - ideally this will happen at the point of data entry but will also occur at other parts - hopefully you suppliers won't just leave it to the transfer part! But this shouldn't cause any real issues to schools - ie you can't put in invalid school as the destination. The sole purpose of the Data warehouse is you transform your data!! This is where the DfE or whoever will do they're transformations - this is what the DfE are saying is manual\done on spreadsheets. This is what will produce the big data - the school performance data.

I think just having a single database where the data flows will be massive step forward. As for CTF\S2S - I don't see as School to School, it's school to DfE to School, just the DfE bit is pretty basic. From the schools point, nothing will change, no extra work will happen, maybe the buttons you press or website you go to will change. The process will basically be the same. From what I understand, currently it's (bold is the manual bits): Old School > MIS - pick students, create CTF > upload to S2S (DfE) > New School > download from S2S (DfE) > import to MIS In the future it'll be Old School > MIS > DfE > pick student (MIS or DfE site??) > New School > MIS So the import\export to XML files will disappear and it will be less manual\error prone. Far as what data is contain, I suspect that will boil down to standardizing the MIS system as whole as at the moment suppliers have had pretty much free reign. It's not an area I would particularly like to get involved with personally, it isn't a technical choice, it's specialised area that requires a particular area experts to define a standard and then, and only then can you put a schema together and define how it's going to be transferred. I suspect based on my limited experience with exams, this is going to be a right mess with a number of ideas coming forward and no real winner. If it was up to me, I'd define it by area then a type - so exams > then exam board \ qualification type (A level \ GCSE) so you wouldn't have a single method. Still this would only be good with regards to transferring, you've still got the problem of how do you turn one type into another!