ICES Information on Children, Education and Schools. Data Collection Sub Group 2nd3rd March 2006 11: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – ICES Information on Children, Education and Schools. Data Collection Sub Group 2nd3rd March 2006 11: PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 127d4f-NzQyN


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

ICES Information on Children, Education and Schools. Data Collection Sub Group 2nd3rd March 2006 11:


NC Year (much better than 2006) Class Sizes (need to assess impact of PPA' time) ... UN = Unemployment (Leaver) TR = Training (Leaver) HE = Higher Education (Leaver) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:37
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: iwat


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ICES Information on Children, Education and Schools. Data Collection Sub Group 2nd3rd March 2006 11:

ICESInformation on Children, Education and
Schools. Data Collection Sub Group2nd/3rd
March 2006 1100 to 1515Jolly St Ermins Hotel,
Westminster, LondonRoyal York Hotel, York.

PLASC School Census, January 2006
PLASC/School Census Jan 06
  • Thank you very much indeed for all your hard work
    so far!
  • Just under 100 returns in so far - best ever
    return rates

PLASC/School Census Jan 06
PLASC/School Census Jan 06
  • Attendance (small number of schools unable to
    supply data)
  • Exclusions (some under-reporting)
  • NC Year (much better than 2006)
  • Class Sizes (need to assess impact of PPA time)

PLASC/School Census Jan 06
  • DAZ software in LA - problem loading School
    Census files need to highlight better in
  • Planning, Preparation Assessment Time
    arrangements to be highlighted for January 2007

PLASC/School Census Jan 06
  • Duplicate Pupil/UPN Reports to LAs 3 March
  • Duplicate Pupil/UPN Reports to DfES 24 March
  • Databases frozen/provisional feedback to LAs - 31
  • Final amendments taken by DfES mid April
  • Databases closed final feedback to LAs - 28 April

PLASC/School Census Jan 06
  • Need access to Key to Success website to access
    data feedback from DfES
  • Funding allocations dependent on Pupil Referral
    Unit and Hospital School returns as well as
    PLASC/School Census figures

PLASC/School Census Jan 06
  • Thank you again

School Census May and September 2006
School level items
Pupil level items
Pupil level items
  • Data Collection meetings 2/3 March 2006

  • CTF5 - in software from Spring 2006 releases
  • Includes
  • Enrolment status in Basic details
  • Sessions authorised in Attendance area
  • Specification of BS7666 and Addresslines as the
    format for addresses and deletion of NLPG format

  • CTF6 proposals for release in software from
    October 2006
  • Actual First language
  • Historic values for SEN Status
  • Sessional attendance data
  • However, not all suppliers will be able to
    deliver in October 2006
  • Systems should still import data from earlier
    versions and recognised data from later versions

  • The following will NOT be included in CTF6
  • Pupil Child Protection Register Indicator and
    Pupil Child Protection Register LEA code
  • Contact priority order
  • Leaving information container
  • Replace ltForenamegt and ltMiddleNamesgt elements
    from CTF with a repeatable ltPersonGivenNamegt

CTF enhancements
  • Discussions at November 2005 meetings
  • Why schools do not produce a CTF?
  • Various reasons were put forward
  • The Regulations allow for the CTF to be issued at
    the point of leaving or when requested by the
    next school
  • The school does not see CTF as a priority
  • Forgetfulness
  • The process is not automatic

Suggestions for improvement
  • MIS software automatically producing a CTF the
    day after the date of leaving is entered into the
    MIS system
  • Moving to a situation whereby the use of
    (partial) CTF for specific data transfer purposes
    with specific file names etc is clearly different
    from the statutory requirement to send a (full)
    CTF at the point that a pupil leaves a school

Automatic CTF production
  • Minimum requirements would need to include
  • Date of leaving. This is already a mandatory
    field required for School Census and CTF
  • Reason for leaving/destination
  • A mechanism to search for
  • Dates of leaving the previous day
  • Destinations

Automatic CTF production
  • Minimum requirements (cont)
  • A process to produce a single CTF for all pupils
    with the same date of leaving and same
    destination and single CTFs for each pupil where
    the destination is Unknown or Outside
    maintained sector
  • A prompt for schools to submit CTFs produced to
    the S2S (or other secure) website for onward

Automatic CTF production
  • Reasons for leaving when a CTF file should be

Automatic CTF production
  • Reasons for leaving when a CTF file should NOT be

Automatic CTF production
  • Additional fields in MIS for
  • Date of creation of CTF file (for each pupil)
  • Date CTF file transferred via S2S or other
    internal LA secure transfer mechanism (recorded
    against each pupil)
  • Date of import of CTF file (for each new pupil
    transferring in)

XML Transfer files (partial CTF)
  • LA colleagues saw a number of benefits in
    developing XML Transfer files for specific data
    transfer purposes with specific file names,
  • Clearer processes for schools in producing files
    for each purpose
  • Making CTF The file to be used when a pupil
    leaves a school
  • Improved data transfer procedures for the
    collection of FSP and KS1 data

XML Transfer files (partial CTF)
  • Basic
  • An export from a school MIS system to populate a
    third party system used in a school for a
    particular purpose e.g. to record attainment
    data. As such, the only data in the file is
    contained in the basic details container.
  • KSdata
  • This would be used to transfer attainment data
    from a third party system into the school MIS

XML Transfer files (partial CTF)
  • FSPdata
  • A file used by a school to transfer FSP results
    from the school to the LEA. Because the LEA is
    required to send pupil post code data to the DfES
    for each pupil for whom FSP data is returned, the
    file would contain the ltAddressgt container as
    well as the ltStageAssessmentgt container

XML Transfer files (partial CTF)
  • KS1data
  • This file would only send KS1 data from the
    school to the LEA. If used this way, it would
    help remove problems with CTFs containing KS1
    data also containing historic FSP data and
    overwriting data which may have been subsequently
    updated at the LEA but not in the school MIS

XML Transfer files (partial CTF)
  • KS2_3TAdata
  • This file would be used by a school to send end
    of Key Stage teacher assessments direct to NAA.
    It could be used to send the same data to the LEA
    where the LEA collates all such TAs to send en
    bloc to NAA.

XML Transfer files (partial CTF)
  • The Department is minded produce file
    specifications as outlined
  • Some questions still remain i.e.
  • Should such files be generated from a specific
    menu of transfer files or could they be
    accommodated within software dealing with
    assessment/attainment issues?
  • What development timescale would be required to
    take this forward?

  • Software suppliers unable to accommodate any more
    development work in 2006
  • DfES will continue discussions with suppliers
    with a view to possible introduction in 2007

Other suggestions for improvement
  • Schools being given a duty to seek a CTF for
    every pupil admitted to a school as well as a
    duty to send a CTF when a pupil leaves
  • Providing clearer guidance about the requirements
    for CTF and not just the mechanics of creating
    and sending CTF files

Duty to seek a CTF
  • Would require inclusion in a revision to the
    Education (Pupil Information) (England)
    Regulations 2005
  • Consultation is required prior to drafting of
  • No date fixed for any review or consultation on
    2005 Regulations

Clearer guidance about CTF
  • Existing guidance is on production and transfer
    of CTF
  • New guidance to provide the context for CTF
  • Original (statutory) purpose
  • Development of CTF as a transfer mechanism
  • Future development

Proposal for Reducing Duplicate UPNs
  • Lancashire LA

  • The cleansing of duplicate UPNs is a very
    resource intensive exercise.
  • Schools resent the extra effort involved in
    removing a pupil record from their Census return
    and re-submitting, especially if submitted in
    good faith.
  • Resentment generated by schools that appear to be
    enrolling on the day without regard for where
    pupil has come from.

Bad Practice
  • Cases where pupils not in attendance for lessons
    have been enrolled by a new school in the
    afternoon of Census day merely on the strength of
    an interview with their parents!
  • One school in 2005 had to re-submit twice (i.e.
    completing PLASC 3 times) as other schools
    claimed pupils at various points of the day!

ICESInformation on Children, Education and
Schools.Data Collection sub group
  • Requirement on suppliers to deliver validation
    for current addresses as well as new addresses to
    be clarified
  • Will address be in BS7666 format?
  • Is September Pupil count being dropped? Any
    changes would affect LA planning a resourcing.
    Better to have consolidated census.
  • Request for joint EY and DC meeting
  • SWF - Questions on why pulled, will data items be
    removed? Comment from floor about desire to keep
    the momentum now LAs have trailed the
    possibilities and advantages with their schools.
    Q on whether there was pressure from Software
    suppliers because of cost of writing programmes.

New Proposal
  • Onus on receiving school to have made contact
    with losing school prior to School Census day
    otherwise pupil still counts on losing school
  • This places responsibility to obtain pupil
    details firmly with the receiving school.
  • When proposal put to schools / LAs, seen as much
    fairer than existing arrangement (which could
    generate nasty surprises weeks later!).

  • Virtually no change!
  • Still cases of pupils being left on roll by
    losing schools from previous Sept., Oct., Nov.,
    and December!
  • In Lancashire still 108 records to investigate
    33 cases of duplication eventually identified
    resulting in re-submissions from schools.

How Refine?
  • Whilst the proposal had over-whelming support
    beforehand (with Lancashire schools and many NW
    LAs) there was still a great deal of work needed
    to eliminate duplicate records within Lancashire.
  • Any ideas as to how to make what seems a
    theoretically good idea work in practice?