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

1
ICESInformation on Children, Education and
Schools. Data Collection Sub Group2nd/3rd
March 2006 1100 to 1515Jolly St Ermins Hotel,
Westminster, LondonRoyal York Hotel, York.
2

3
PLASC School Census, January 2006
4
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

5
PLASC/School Census Jan 06
6
PLASC/School Census Jan 06

• DATA QUALITY
• 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)

7
PLASC/School Census Jan 06

• LESSONS LEARNED
• DAZ software in LA - problem loading School
  Census files need to highlight better in
  guidance
• Planning, Preparation Assessment Time
  arrangements to be highlighted for January 2007
  Census

8
PLASC/School Census Jan 06

• DATA CONFIRMATION (FUNDING) - TIMETABLE
• Duplicate Pupil/UPN Reports to LAs 3 March
• Duplicate Pupil/UPN Reports to DfES 24 March
• Databases frozen/provisional feedback to LAs - 31
  March
• Final amendments taken by DfES mid April
  deadline
• Databases closed final feedback to LAs - 28 April
  

9
PLASC/School Census Jan 06

• DATA CONFIRMATION (FUNDING) - CONTD
• 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

10
PLASC/School Census Jan 06

• Thank you again

11
School Census May and September 2006
12
School level items
13
Pupil level items
14
Pupil level items
15
CTF

• Data Collection meetings 2/3 March 2006

16
CTF 5

• 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

17
CTF 6

• 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

18
CTF 6

• 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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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
  transmission.

23
Automatic CTF production

• Reasons for leaving when a CTF file should be
  created

24
Automatic CTF production

• Reasons for leaving when a CTF file should NOT be
  created

25
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)

26
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,
  including
• 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

27
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
  system.

28
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

29
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
  system

30
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.

31
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?

32
Progress

• 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

33
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

34
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
  Regulations
• No date fixed for any review or consultation on
  2005 Regulations

35
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

36
Proposal for Reducing Duplicate UPNs

• Lancashire LA

37
Background

• 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.

38
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!

39
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.

40
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
  return.
• 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!).

41
Results

• 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.

42
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?