bobsmith

Agreed but it's also slightly insane. If a company makes school software and has a granular approach to what data it extracts - which we control - then a standard contract written by them makes sense provided it ticks the right boxes. If you were to have some bespoke software made then it's a different situation where a standard contract wouldn't work.

PS connect can send reports - but I've found it a complete PITA. SIMS Parent App is actually pretty slick - it's my new preferred solution for reports and updating their details. However PS connect is a communications tool - SIMS Parent App isn't. So ultimately you're gonna new a combination of systems unless you can find one which does it all (and does it well).

That's another can of worms you've gone and opened there GrahamB! Summary information and individual records can be looked at differently to some degree. So a report that only contains the summary of language proficiency, where individuals cannot be identified, could probably survive your purge of data. The individual records should be hunted down where possible. I seriously doubt even the DfE is gonna be fully GDPR compliant anytime soon.

Haven't seen this yet - because I haven't looked tbh. However what I do here is create a "pre-canned" option if we have more than 2 kids with the condition.

I'd love to say there's an easy way of doing this in Nova but there isn't. SIMS do offer a fudge called SIMS Multiple Timetables - but we tried it and it didn't meet our requirements at all. It may work better for you. The solution which would work (100%) would be to change MIS and use one that doesn't work the way Nova does! Facility Scheduler happily runs different timetable timings for different years.

We're on SIMS Enhanced Support and nothing else from them here. Are you in charge of the network in your school as well? If not then the other two packages they are offering are the concern of the network manager as they are just general IT support. You can get the same type of support as the SIMs Enhanced Support from 3rd party Support providers, this may work out cheaper/better for you.

I disagree with Banjo's point. The examples you gave were all covered by "legal basis" - i.e. providing education and pastoral care to students. The data that is being discussed in relation to removal is data that is particularly sensitive - isn't it actually in the higher band of sensitive data? If the organisation (the DfE) who insisted we collect it for their purposes has now told us not to, then deleting this information would make sense as our legal basis has been removed. I understand the argument against throwing the baby out with the bathwater - but I'm not seeing it apply in this case.

You could ask for their UPNs now? Alternatively they can have packed lunch for the first day or two? Or get their UPNs in the summer dependent on their old school having some admin staff available in the holiday?

We use CPOMS and our experience mirrors those above - once it's up and running it's a very hands off system from our point of view.

Is your attendance officer updating lesson marks as well as session marks? That's always been the problem I've found. The one bit of SIMS that's always been pretty bulletproof has been the attendance section.

Think this takes care of that.

Really not getting this opt-out issue. If there was no such thing as a cloud-MIS then maybe you'd have a point, but we already have our data hosted offsite and we didn't ask permission because we don't have to. This app is simply allowing parents to access that data. I'm all for a bit of Capita bashing when it's deserved, but this just isn't an issue at all.

Sims.net can already be entirely cloud hosted. GDPR is concerned about shipping outside the EU, not the UK. Unless you're advocating rolling the clock back to 1950 and doing everything on paper then you're arguing a very strange position. GDPR was not intended to prevent the use of data systems in schools. Nor was it intended for people to opt out of absolutely everything in the digital world.

But we're using that third party for our MIS which is an essential function of running the school - which means that we don't need to request consent. If you were cloud hosted you'd be in the same server farm anyway. Provided Capita aren't farming the data we are entrusting them to hold for us and selling it on to yet another third party or sending direct marketing to our students or parents then there's no issue.

what's ATL?

It's on the EU servers. I'm trialling it now and it's working ok even though it's a complete pain in the bum to register users. What I can't get my head round is the difference between the parent app and parent app lite - there's only 1 download on the app stores and only 1 management console - guess you can't have parent's choose which version they use?

Could you not use a slightly more granular approach? Import the bare basics to get a record up and running - google sheets Import the CTFs, but untick those fields you don't want to rely on - commonly contacts and addresses are a mess anyway. Re-import from google sheets with the full details that you want. I've not used progresso other than in demos, but it's predecessor had options to untick bits of the CTF so I'm assuming it still does.

Or you can add the parental consent sub-reports and filter each to show just one permission. You get the same thing but with the added bonus of adding whatever extra fields you may require. Just doing mine now - doing the fun bit of cross referencing against form group/year group and sizes to identify those we need to chase up and those where we think the parent got confused and ticked the wrong box.

Did I miss an actual update to this thread or was this just the mother of all necroposts? p.s. we've just agreed to enforce a fairly strict auto-lock on unattended staff PCs, that will help a bit - and also make the staff moan some more. Give it a few more years and staff PCs will just do iris recognition or some other passive system to ensure security. No more banging your head against the brick wall of attempting to change human behaviour by diktat!

I'm jumping on the bandwagon with synaesthesia. The site is amazingly slow - like PhilNeal is hosting it on a 56k modem from his basement. Searching for stuff is sometimes reasonably helpful and sometimes infuriatingly bad. Even Capita tech support fail to find KB articles I quote at them!

Ah, Sorry to clarify, new KS2 data appears in NCA tools - so this september's year 7s will be available on there when the results open on 10th July. Old data is indeed on Key to Success for 2007-2017 which should cover every student you've got. As for the actual fine scores - typically we the data people have to calculate them - hertfordshire council usually have a nice spreadsheet that helps do the heavy lifting for you. Alternatively the tables checking website has a downloadable CSV with the actual ks2 fine scores the DfE will use for your Progress 8 calculations - but it's only your current year 11s that are on there.

no - and you can have hours of fun reading the old threads about it. Capita think they've got audits for everything that matters, but it's basically just who changed an attendance mark and who entered which bit of assessment data. When I used Facility CMIS I could audit pretty much everything

can you monitor the size of the files when they are hitting the print queue and let us know how big they are?

I don't think any official measure is based on their KS2, pretty sure they are all related to KS4 results. However it's always nice to have a full set of results for all students currently in your school - keeps the OCD quiet.

NCA tools is the official source, vikpaw linked it above. Last time I checked FFT did some slightly different rounding calculations compared to the DfE, so I just go straight to the source. You can get KS2 results for your KS5 students from there too. FFT don't cover KS5 students yet - as they don't do estimates for KS5.