GrumbleDook

*Sigh* By all means have them in every 14 days. If updates are being released that quickly then surely it splits the amount of time in half and so they still get paid the same amount. And then wait to watch them go into a long-winded explanation about why it doesn’t work like that and so on. Then your wife’s company then says that this sounds a lot like something that needs a change management exercise to look at the scope of works. The support provider needs to provide guidance that should be peer-reviewed. We see the paper ... give our collective critique ... and the IT firm are politely asked to stay as is, but have an option to buying in additional time for when a critical update is needed as it either affects services crucial to the business needs of the company or it affects the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Translation: you may have a point but don’t extract the urine, we may opt to look elsewhere. Instead, provide an option for if we need you in an emergency. If we find you *are* extracting the urine you will be on your bike ... with no tyres ... and with a lot of people pointing their fingers at you, mocking ...

Good to see you back, Bryan.

I've been called many things in life (and still do get called them as well) but this ain't me. It was wonderful to bump into Mitch Resnik though and watch him kneel down and chat with a bunch of children visiting BETT ... it's folk like him who make the world go round. My thoughts on this ... "Communities of practice have a well established position within education, from researchers to teachers, aspiring leaders to long established SLT. EduGeek is proof that this applies to *all* aspects of education, with collective endeavour to support each other, provide challenge and continue to raise the bar. No-one in the community espouses that revered expert status, but collectively EduGeek members *are* experts. Over the years we have supported Open Source, cloud services, improving procurement, life long learning across all staff in schools, flexibility as school roles change and adapt, standards within the IT profession and, most of all, ensuring impact on the education of children. I can think of few communties that spend more of their own time learning and sharing than the EduGeek community. At one conference held at Bletchley Park, the Open Source in Schools community talked about standing on the shoulders of giants, building on the knowledge and expertise in computing that drove those people in the sheds at Bletchley Park. Someone has to build those sheds ... and I can think of no better group who I would trust to do so. EduGeek, building the sheds in schools since ... well ... we've sort of been around forever!"

This is PECR, not GDPR really ... report it to ICO.

Part of the presumption is that there is only 1 email address in use here ... Some parents are known to use multiple addresses. 1 for all school related activities, 1 dealing payments, 1 dealing with banking ... If they are saying that you need to manually enter it as then you are checking if there is a difference between what is in there and what you think it should be ... then it is down to *you* to go and check with the parent about the discepency. Personally, I would prefer a system to hold the change and try to contact me (as a parent) to say that an update is being made and can I verify it. If I don't verify it, then it reports back to you and *then* you chase.

It is a pain in the backside situation based on schools having a broad range of time and engagement with parents to ensure correct info. By asking for manual updates there is a better chance of visual verification of human error (typos and such). If seen some schools and providers agree to encourage parents to check and update details (onus back on the parent). Keep talking with them and see if there is a way you can use the difference between what you know and what they know to target individuals about updating information.

Contractual necessity could be used, not consent. And even if they are using consent, then they would gather that when the parent signs in to *their* service.

Do you have the URL for it?

You are forgetting that the payment provider is probably also working as a Joint DC in this circumstance. They have a direct relationship with the parents too ... especially where they are managing parents with children in different schools. Why *should* they believe what the schools says? They have to rely on what the parents say. Schools have been known to get things wrong, you know. MIS are not infallible.

The only bit I would add to what @rom1984 has said is ... don't forget that there are other aspects of law to consider including CMA. The Morrisons case is still going through appeal so there could be a large precendent there. Remember that just because the member of staff was negligent, it doesn't mean that the school did everything they could have done. The school *is* the controller.

Unfortunately not. Have a meeting after BETT closes on Thursday, then heading home.

Have you tried ringing the ICO helpline to ask the question?

Whilst not finalised, that area has been heavily discussed, and a lot of people are taking the approach that either you start considering it a bad habit to stop now or you make preparations to change when the law comes in. Be prepared.

Pretty much covers it all, and yes ... it can form part of a SAR, but consider that these packs are out together very quickly, easily within the 30 days ... so the SAR is likely to be for materials already produced and that they have had access to (so doesn’t need to be drawn up again, apart from releasable items from the appeal).

There is another discussion on the update capita provided in bulk deletion further up in this sub-forum.

Any email that they’ve sent, was sent to them or they were CCed in need no redaction. Any email links to safeguarding (including H&S and relevant competency concerns) may need to be reviewed and considered whether they should be shared. Any that provide personal data of others who they don’t have a right to access need to be redacted ... If you think this is linked to a complaint, an existing grievance or possible competency issues then discuss with HR and Legal for advice. If you think that sharing any emails puts the rights and freedoms of others at risk then seek legal support. Ultimately, whatever decision is made, justify it.

This was part of a cracking discussion with the SMHW team ... you can use consent if you want (school choice) but public task is more likely to be appropriate for many schools. Their Privacy Notice should cover most things for you.

But under ePR it will be.

I’ll miss you

Might see if I can get a few MOS certs out the way.

I’ll be along on Wednesday and Thursday this year ... so no face pain Friday I’m afraid. I’m mainly in heckle mode this year, and will be around for the pizza ... and to add whatever freebies there are to the EG archive.

Because no matter how well intentioned some of the speakers are, and no matter how honest they are about not looking for silver bullets / buying the next shiny thing / avoiding things sold purely based on buzzwords ... there is a significant number of attendees at these sessions that *will* need more direction. People coming back from these sessions have been known to misquote, accuse IT Support of being blockers when IT Support have actually been following the guidance *they* heard / read when they started researching some of these themes several years ago ... and in some cases following some of the educational concepts involved for nigh on 20 years, having already implemented similar schemes in other schools. I think that is a fair summary of discussions on this area on EG, RM forums, Becta forums and various newsgroups and mailing lists over the last 20 years? Some things improve ... some thing don’t. It’s not about being negative but about having a sense of realism. Oh ... and there is the important matter that some of these sessions are *designed* to have multi-discipline teams attend to get the most out of them, so only one person going along will mean some points get missed. It could have been said that we would want an IT Tech to attend unaccompanied. That could also be a valid point to. Discuss.

Translated, it means looking at procurement, resources, strategies, infrastructure, adoption (both implementation and classroom adoption / hearts and minds) and operational aspects. I’m looking forward to it (with minimal heckling).

Retention is based on need. The IRMS guidance is usually based around this, you need to establish what *your* need is. Base it on safeguarding, H&S and operational requirements is probably you best starter for 10

Got one done on Monday (health at 74%) and the older one will get booked in shortly.