Advertisement

First no Choice, then Some Choice, and Finally Overload

A Reasonable Data Management Evolution?
  • Don Passey
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 292)

Abstract

Data management has moved in evolutionary ways in the education system in England. Although some might say that the current evolution has moved from a situation where there was no choice (20 and more years ago), to one where there was some choice (up to 20 years ago), to a position where there is now overload, this paper will argue that that is not the case when the position is viewed from certain perspectives. The paper will contend that data itself has changed little over a period of 20 years, but that data analyses, forms of data presentation, and access to data handling facilities have all changed a great deal. The paper argues that this has led to ‘data complexity’ rather than ‘data overload'. Indeed, as the paper will show, when concerns about current national policies are considered, it is inevitable that the evolution will continue. It is argued that in this period of future evolution, ’smarter’ systems will be needed if increasing numbers of facilities are to be used effectively and efficiently.

Keywords

Data management data handling data in schools features of data systems educational management and data future of data systems 

References

  1. 4Matrix. (n.d.). 4Matrix 'Within School Variation' Toolkit. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.4matrix.org/
  2. Alfiesoft.com. (2008). Assessment for learning made easy. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from http://www.alfiesoft.com/index.php
  3. Becta. (2005). School Management Information Systems and Value for Money: A review with recommendations for addressing the sub-optimal features of the current arrangements. Coventry: Becta.Google Scholar
  4. Becta. (2006). Harnessing Technology Delivery Plan. Coventry: Becta.Google Scholar
  5. Becta. (2007). The Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF). Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://industry.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID= 28188
  6. Becta. (2008). Statement of intent on interoperability from DCSF, DIUS and Becta. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from http://news.becta.org.uk/display. cfm?resID=37481
  7. Capita Children's Services. (2007). SIMS – Schools Information Management System. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.capitaes.co.uk/SIMS/index.asp
  8. CEM Centre. (2007). The CEM Centre. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.cemcentre.org/
  9. Coe, R. (2002). Evidence on the role and impact of performance feedback in schools. In A.J. Visscher and R. Coe (Eds.). School improvement through performance feedback. Routledge: Abingdon.Google Scholar
  10. Department for Children, Schools and Families. (n.d.). Key to Success. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from https://www.keytosuccess.dfes.gov.uk/
  11. Department for Children, Schools and Families. (n.d.). Pupil Achievement Tracker. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/performance/pat/
  12. Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Harnessing technology: transforming learning and children's services. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Edix Live. (2007). Edix Live 2008 – this time it's personal. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://edixlive.com/
  14. Facility. (2005). Facility CMIS. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.serco.com/others/facility/independent/facilityproducts/facilitycmis/index.asp
  15. Fischer Family Trust. (n.d.). Data Analysis Project. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.fischertrust.org/
  16. GL Assessment (2007). Cognitive Abilities Test: Third Edition. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://shop.nfer-nelson.co.uk/icat/7916204main
  17. Her Majesty's Government Department for Education and Skills (2005). White Paper: Higher Standards, Better Schools For All – More choice for parents and pupils. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  18. Kirkup, C., Sizmur, J., Sturman, L. and Lewis, K.(2005) Research Report No 671: Schools' Use of Data in Teaching and Learning. Department for Education and Skills: NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  19. Ofsted and Department for Education and Skills. (n.d.). Welcome to RAISEonline. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from https://www.raiseonline.org/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2findex.aspx
  20. Passey, D. (2007). Technology enhancing learning: Limited data handling facilities limit educational management potential. In A. Tatnall, T. Okamoto and A. Visscher (Eds.). Knowledge Management for Educational Innovation. Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  21. Passey, D. (2008). Data integration and school management systems in the United Kingdom. In A. Breiter, A. Lange and E. Stauke (eds.). School Information Systems and Data-based Decision-making. Peter Lang: Frankfurt-am-Main.Google Scholar
  22. Selwood, I. (1995). The Development of ITEM in England and Wales. In B.Z. Barta, M. Telem and Y. Gev (Eds.). Information Technology in Educational Management. Chapman Hall: London.Google Scholar
  23. Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. (2007). Toolkits. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from https://secure.ssatrust.org.uk/eshop/default.aspx?mcid=22&scid=34&productid=627Google Scholar
  24. Track to Success. (2007). Welcome to Track to Success. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.tracktosuccess.co.uk/

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Don Passey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations