Now we know what the Sorting Hat gets up to when it isn't needed at Hogwarts.
Brit families waiting to find out if their kids have been accepted into their secondary school of choice were bamboozled on Thursday by a computer blunder. Herefordshire Council's systems sent out a wedge of emails to parents offering their children places for the new school year – but the information was wrong. It appears …
Not exactly sure where the law stands on this, but it's quite likely that testing on live data in a potentially live environment is a bloody stupid thing to do. Even back when I was still programming, we had a specific, isolated environment to test on so that it didn't do anything to the live environment that we'd regret!
With the race to get everything back to the past (clouds, thin clients and what-not), you'd think that they'd remember something like that, wouldn't you?
The least they could have done would be to bork the mailer if they weren't testing mail functionality, or update all the email addresses on the system / via the mail server to a test email address / a council address belonging to a tester if they were.
Testing with live data is not illegal in the UK - would be v challenging to do UAT for large organisations if it was - but a stuff up like this will make it hard for HC IT bods to be allowed to do it in the future.
So reading that blurb, the first link just says that you need to observe the data protection act for real personal data - which is obvious anyway. But doesn't make testing with production data illegal.
The second link seems to a product advert disguised as an article. It even has a copyright notice stating that it belongs to the company in question...
Yes blame it on IT, more likely it was a user in the schools admissions department making sure the software works without thinking of the consequences. IT departments are not babysitters, people should take some responsibility for their own actions or next year the users will be complaining IT are too restrictive in what they allow! Can't win!
"the admissions system took it upon itself to "
"The development team took it upon themselves to incorrectly program and then hit the "go live" button without doing ANY background testing"..
I'll wager that this is another out-sourced IT company, like Serco and Co-Socius who are not capabale of doing the job despite costing MILLIONS more than the old in house council IT crew
People forget things sometimes, that doesn't make them an idiot, it makes them human. I see this as a failure of the team and processes. Code committed wasn't reviewed before it was pulled in to the main code base and there was no testing of the changes before they went live. And also, you'd expect a bunch of tests to pick up on the fact emails weren't trying to be sent to the right place. You can't place those failures on a single developer.
I think you're not informed about your school place until towards the end of April. We had a right old shambles with Cornwall's admissions system. We want our little girl to go to a school in Plymouth but you have to apply via your own LEA. The school we'd like her to go is about 100yds from where I work is a very good school with very good before and after school care. Our local village school is none of those! Not that good and hopeless before and after school care, really good when you both work! Anyway went to fill the online form in only to find said school isn't on the list, after much discussion was told they could add it to the list for next year! Very handy! So had to download a form and email it off to them. Then as we had started the online procedure but not finished it, as school wasn't on the list, and you can't delete an application once started. We got a letter from Cornwall Council saying we haven't filled in a school admissions form. *sigh*
A stressful time indeed, but if you know your application offer isn't coming until April you would be suspicious about this one! I'm in the process of applying for Primary schools for my girls. No really good ones nearby, put if I put in for a good one a bit further away there is a good chance I won't get it and be sent to somewhere even further which has lots of unwanted places (for good reason).
I feel your pain. The school we want to send our little girl to (above) is a CofE school so even though we live 25 miles away (but work right next to!) we hope we have a reasonable chance of getting her in as my wife does go to church with my daughter (I'm not religious BTW) and that trumps most other entrance criteria.
This simply makes my blood boil, the fact that someone attends church improves their chances of getting into a school. The fact that it is a religious school should have no consequence on can go there, if it were funded by a church, fair enough but not when it's tax payers money. I would love to see someone claim relgious dicrimination for failure to get in.
I still can't understand hpw in this day and age there is any aspect of religion in schools beyond RE lessons that simply teach about what people beleive in. And pesonally, I don't see why that has to be an individual subject.
Maybe my post was too subtle. The school is funded by tax payers money. Given that why should any preference be be placed on a potential pupil based on their religion. if a church was to fund the school out of their own pocket I'd be happy to concede that. But I pay the same tax the other parents pay so why does my child not have the exact same chance of getting into a school 100m away as my neighbours kid and instead I have to take her to a school in a different town?
Yes, I do know they can do this, there is even a specific clause in the discrimination act. My subtle(?) point which was "why", this is want makes my blood boil. Religion has no place in education other than a subject, but to explicitly bend over backwards to allow discrimination based on it has no place in todays world.
"where they concentrate on keeping the bottom line as low as possible "
Where they are FORCED to keep the bottom line as low as possible -TFTFY.
Say a council decides to replace their 20 year-old school admissions system, not because it doesn't work but because the cabinet office (NOT the EU) enforces "maximum supplier spends" (so even though it's been upgraded every year, fine-tuned until it perfectly matches their processes, and does exactly what they want it to, they've got to go out and replace it because they have reached some arbitrary level set by the civil service).
Now the value of this system does not exceed the EU tendering thresholds but it does exceed the cabinet office requirements for "competitive quotation". A CQ is effectively a tender except rather than have to publish an ITT you can choose the (minimum of) three suppliers to ask to quote on the replacement. The bids are usually assessed. from a cost perspective, over a three year period.
Let's assume our hypothetical council has got quotes from A, who were the original suppliers, where the cost of implementation is nothing, and the licensing/running costs are £40,000 per annum. Company B quotes an implementation cost of £40,000 and annual licensing costs of £30,000. Company C quotes £20,000 implementation and £10,000 support costs. So the cost over three years is £120,000 for A, £130,000 for B and £50,000 for C. The bids are assessed by the IT department, the admissions department and procurement. The system has been specified using Moscow criteria but, because the cabinet office say you can't slant those criteria to favour a specific product (and you can be sued by an unsuccessful bidder if they can prove you did) those criteria are fairly broad and all three systems meet the Must criteria.
Admissions want system A but could live with B if they had to; C has been used by other councils and is widely reported to be a steaming pile of poo. IT would prefer B, because it integrates better with their existing systems, but as they already running A sticking with it is no big deal, again C has been shown to cause network problems, server crashes and is generally very service desk intensive so they definitely don't want it. However Procurement look at the bottom line and with 60% of the vote their recommendation to the PTB who sign-off such purchases is that they purchase system C.
This is duly purchased and goes on to cause no end of problems for involved except procurement, who are the only ones in the council to get an above inflation pay rise because of "all the money they've saved the council".
It's admissions and IT who get it in the neck because the system doesn't work properly and when it actually stays up long enough for them to input the data it sends out emails when pupils are moved into their potential schools instead of sending them when that placement has been approved.
Oh and who introduced these wonderful limits and procurement rules? That will be a succession of Tory governments, in particular the Major regime, to ensure that all their cronies got a slice of the public pie.
Of course that is the same government that brought in competitive admissions. Prior to that your choice was you paid for your child's education at a private school, or your child went to the nearest state school. If the nearest state school was under-performing then you had a vested interest in improving it so you supported its fund-raising activities, gave donations for extra equipment or books not on the statutory list, and/or stood for election to the board of governors (who had the power to fire the head!). Note I said stood for election; because of parents having a vested interest in the running of the school, because their children went there and they had the power to affect real change, elections had to be held for governors because there were more applicants than places. These days it's appeals because there are not enough school governors, and many of the powers that governors used to have were transferred to Ofsted (another Major creation) so the role is largely powerless to effect meaningful change in any case.
Where they are FORCED to keep the bottom line as low as possible
And that's why they concentrate. I do agree with you as I've worked in a couple of different councils over the years, both of which suffered from this problem, both of which were severely shackled in their actions by people who were more interested in bottom line savings than efficiency. That's why I get annoyed by the term "best value". It often has nothing to do with actual cost savings, just bottom line cutting.
And I'm speaking as somebody that has worked under more than one dominant party. They all see Councils as something they can sting for a bit of extra cash when things are getting tight. That's why Councils end up getting it in the neck every time they cut services or raise Council Tax.
....most of you who have bothered to vote at all have voted for the party which will give you the lowest tax rate. You have bought into the myth that Labour caused the deficit and that "austerity" public spending cuts will fix it (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html) .
These "austerity cuts" have reduced local government to a shambles, staffed only by people who are either too inexperienced to work elsewhere, too incompetent to work elsewhere, or have been there for years and are too close to their pension to want to work elsewhere and are just waiting for early retirement/voluntary redundancy. This latter group has absolutely no motivation because they are being managed by 18 year old "management trainees" and there is no money available to fix the myriad problems with their systems, let alone take a strategic approach to improving things; most of the time they are just fire-fighting 10 year old servers and networks, because there is no money for new kit, thanks to Osborne, Cameron & Clegg. Pay in the public sector is now down to less than two-thirds of the private sector equivalent jobs and people still wonder why no-one competent wants to work in local government. Even if jobs are outsourced, staff are TUPE'd on their current rate of pay, and then their conditions are gradually eroded because "you're in the private sector now". The outsourcers have to deliver the same service as in-house, but with less money than the council used (otherwise how would the council be saving money?) and they have to show a profit for their shareholders, so the service becomes worse than it was under the council.
As for test environments, don't make me laugh! Funded from where? Little used test servers have been used to replace failing live ones until there is no dev environment left.
If the government continues to impose these massive cuts on the public sector you are going to see service failures, and not just in IT, that make this look completely insignificant. No-one died here. They will if things don't change.
yep they get their cash direct so they don't have to go through incompetence that is the LEA. Classic example and this is going back to the late 80's. I left school in 87 about 2 years after I left they spent money laying carpet through out the school! This was in the days when schools were moaning there wasn't any money for books etc. Correct as you've spent it all on fecking carpet!
Once again someone sounding off blaming the local authority without the foggiest fecking idea what they are talking about. NATIONAL government decides what proportion of the LEAs budget is spent on buildings, what on books, what on teachers' salaries etc, based on the LEAs submission which in turn is based on previous budgets.
The LEA cannot shift money from one part of the budget to another and. like most other public sector budgets, whatever is unused at the end of one FY is taken out of the budget for the next year.
So, for example, a local authority is undertaking a series of building repairs and improvement works at a number of schools in the current FY. They have also budgeted for a similar programme in the next FY. It is now January and the budgets have been approved and are set in stone. At one of the schools work on an outbuilding scheduled for conversion to an arts block has revealed substantial amounts of asbestos in the walls. Whilst the cost of removing this will be covered by the County Council's contingency fund, the building work will now not start until the new FY, which means that none of it can be paid for out of the existing budget. This means that the LEA now has (for example) £60,000 that it can't spend on its intended works. If that money is not spent it will be reclaimed into central government and the LEA will be £60,000 short on its budget for next year's works. So rather than happening they elect to spend it on (e.g.) carpet for a number of schools in the area (especially if one or more schools have requested the provision of carpet); this ensures they preserve their budget for the next FY.
Rather than blaming the local authority, why not target your ire at the Westminster bureaucrats who have made large areas of L(E)A budgeting and procurement an absolute minefield, and waste far more of taxpayers' money than any council ever did with its spending policies. If a private company can carry over budget from one FY to the next, why is it so unreasonable for an LA to be able to do it? Why should an LA not be able to decide that money not needed in its buildings fund can be spent on books instead? Frameworks designed originally to prevent corruption have, instead, lead to restrictions on local authorities which make no sense and waste taxpayers money.
However if you try to explain this most people either glaze over or stick their fingers in their ears whilst going "la-la-la". After all, it's much easier just to blame the local council, isn't it?
....from the commentards; "I bet it's a result of outsourcing", "developer's fault", "change management's fault", etc. come up with something a bit more original please ! You don't re-develop an admissions system each year for the next pupil cohort, chances are it's been stable and unchanged for some time with no development "go-live" needed in recent months or years.
My money is on a human mistake in the non-outsourced admissions team accidentally pressing the "send the results now" button without realising what the effect was.
Afraid not. Ministers (and others) like to play. So, the rules change, sometimes subtly, sometimes not and by the time they are finalised, there isn't enough time to do a quality job in development, test and, especially, deployment before the next admissions round starts.
And it's more complicated than you might think - especially in and around London where applications often span boroughs / counties and each LA has to coordinate with its neighbours.
"In other words, the admissions system took it upon itself to offer kids school places before officials had made up their minds."
NO, blame the people who activated the admissions system without properly testing it. Could you find out anymore technical details, by any change was this "admissions system" an msOffice MailMerge macro?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019