The Role of the School MIS in Pupil Transfer Within England

  • Alan Strickley
  • Sue Allen
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 292)

Abstract

Transfer is a stage at which the education of pupils can be detrimentally affected if continuity of the curriculum and programmes of learning are not seamless and appropriate to the learner. As such the movement of the pupil profile is key. This paper looks at the current data transfer model and considers its strengths and weaknesses in the context of primary, secondary and in year admissions. It considers solutions that would optimise the availability, quality and accessibility of the process and the viability of each. It concludes that an improvement would be best facilitated by an investment in the technological infrastructure and hence recommends a shared database with web-enabled access to all appropriate parties.

Keywords

Management information systems common transfer file pupil transfer curriculum continuity admissions 

References

  1. Brown, J. M., Taggart, B. McCallum, B & Gipps, C. (1996). The impact of key stage 2 results. In Education 3 to 13, Volume 24, No. 3, (pp. 3–7).Google Scholar
  2. BECTA (2005). School management systems and value for money. Coventry: BECTA.Google Scholar
  3. Capel, S., Zwozdiak-Myers, P. & Lawrence, J. (2007). The transfer of pupils from primary to secondary school: a case study of a foundation subject: physical education. Research in education. 77: (pp. 14–30). Manchester: Manchester University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capita. (2007). ONE in Scotland. [Online] http://www.capitaes.co.uk/EMS/Scotland.asp [Accessed 18 December 2007].
  5. DCSF (2007a). CTF Definition. [Online]. http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/ims/datatransfers/CTF/ctf7/ [Accessed 18 December 2007].
  6. DCSF (2007b). Information on the transfer of CTF. [Online] http://www.everychildmatters.gov.=uk/resources/ig00202/ [Accessed 18 December 2007].
  7. DCSF (2007c). ATF Definition (2007). [Online] http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/ims/datatransfers/coordadmissions/CoorAdmin2008/ [Accessed 18 December 2007].
  8. DCSF (2007d). S2S File transfer site. [Online] http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/ims/datatransfers/s2s/ [Accessed 19 December 2007].
  9. DCSF (2007e). Key to Success website. [Online] https://www.keytosuccess.dfes.gov.uk/ [Accessed 19 December 2007].
  10. DCSF (2007f). The children's plan. Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  11. DCSF (2007g). Unique pupil numbers; policy and guidance practice for schools and Las. [Online] http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/ims/datamanagement/UPN/ [Accessed 23 November 2007].
  12. DCSF (2008a). Information management strategy. [Online] http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/ims/ [Accessed 27 March 2008].
  13. DCSF (2008b). School Admissions Consultation 2008. [Online] http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/conDetails.cfm?consultationId=1561 [Accessed 3 July 2008].
  14. DCSF (2008c). School Admissions Consultation 2008. [Online] http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/ims/datacollections/sc2009/ [Accessed 5 August 2008].
  15. DES (1987). The curriculum from 5 to 16: Curriculum matters 2. London: HMSO.DfES (2002). Admissions Code of Practice (2002). London: TSO.Google Scholar
  16. DfES (2005). Explanatory memorandum to the education (pupil information) (England) regulations 2005; 2005 No. 1437. London: HMSOGoogle Scholar
  17. DfES (2007). Admissions Code of Practice (2007). London: TSO.Google Scholar
  18. Derricott, R. (1985). Curriculum continuity: primary to secondary. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  19. Galton, M. & Willcocks, J. (Eds.) (1983). Moving from the primary classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
  20. Galton, M., Gray, J. & Ruddick, J. (1999). The impact of school transitions and transfers on pupils’ progress and attainment. London: DfEE.Google Scholar
  21. Galton, M., Gray, J. & Ruddick, J. (2003). Transfer and transition in the middle years of schooling (7–14). London: DfES.Google Scholar
  22. Galton, M., Morrison & Pell. (2000). Transfer and transition in English schools: reviewing the evidence. International Journal of Educational Research. 33: (pp.341–363). Cambridge: ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. GLOW (2008). [Online]. http://www.glowscotland.org.uk/ [Accessed 27 March 2008].
  24. Gorwood, B. (1991). Primary-secondary transfer after the national curriculum. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  25. HMSO (1998). Data Protection Act. [Online]. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_1 [Accessed 06 August 2008].
  26. HMSO (2003). Every Child Matters. Norwich: TSO.Google Scholar
  27. HMSO (2005). Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1437 The Education (Pupil Information) (England) Regulations 2005. Norwich: TSOGoogle Scholar
  28. HMSO (2007). ContactPoint. [Online]. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/contactpoint/ [Accessed 04 January 2007].
  29. Implementation Review Unit (IRU) (2003). tackling Bureaucracy in schools: Interim report. DfES/0830/2003. Nottinghamshire: DfES Publications.Google Scholar
  30. IRU (2005). The revised edition of the Protocol on Data Sharing and Rationalisation in the Schools Sector. [Online]. www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/ims/newsinfo/protocol/ [Accessed 20 December 2007].
  31. Keane, T. (2005). CTF Usage in Schools [Online] www.teachers.gov.uk/_doc/8603/CTF_DCSR_0705.ppt [Accessed 18 December 2007].
  32. Nicholls, G. & Gardner, J. (1999). Pupils in transition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. OFSTED (1998). How teachers assess the core subjects at key stage 3. London: OFSTED.Google Scholar
  34. OFSTED. (2002). Changing schools: an evaluation of the effectiveness of transfer arrangements at age 11. London: OFSTED.Google Scholar
  35. OFSTED. (2008). RaiseONLINE. [Online]. https://www.raiseonline.org/ [Accessed 23 July 2008].
  36. SIFA UK (2007). Home page. [Online]. http://uk.sifinfo.org/ [Accessed 18 December 2007].
  37. Schagen, S. & Kerr, D. (1999). Bridging the gap? The national curriculum, and progression from primary to secondary school. Slough: NfER.Google Scholar
  38. Skyrme, D. (2002). Knowledge management: approaches and policies. [Online] http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/KM_-_Approaches_and_Policies.pdf [Accessed 4 April 2006]
  39. Smith, D & Wild, P. (2001). The future of school information systems. In Visscher, A.J., Wild, P. & Fung, A.C.W. Information Technology in Educational Management. (pp. 137–160). Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strickley, A., B. (2004). Factors Affecting the Use of MIS as a Tool for Informing and Evaluating Teaching and Learning in Schools. Education and Information Technologies 9 (1): (pp.47–66), March 2004. Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strickley, A., B. (2007). An evaluative case study of the use of management information systems in Birmingham primary schools. Doctoral thesis. Birmingham: Birmingham City University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Strickley
    • 1
  • Sue Allen
    • 1
  1. 1.Birmingham City CouncilBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations