There has been loads of opendata published in the schools arena in recent years with the initial Edubase data release being a key part of the data.gov.uk launch. And last year the DfE released a new school comparison site (together with all the comparison data !!!) that does a really good job.

This means we now have 3 government sponsored schools data sites, Edubase, the comparison site and the DirectGov site. And there is one thing that’s missing from all of them. The judgement of the Ofsted inspectors during their last visit. The reason why that is missing is worth discussing but not right now.

Suffice to say I think it would be useful for prospective parents (and others) to see at a glance how Ofsted view each school especially in relation to its neighbours. So I propose that we build one on Saturday.

And it’s not as if the information isn’t available. All of the sites mentioned above provide links from each school’s page to an Ofsted home page for that school, listing the inspections of that school. But to find out the judgement of the inspectors – a very important piece of metadata – you need to open a pdf file and read through the report. If you are not familiar with Ofsted reports this is not an easy task. But Ofsted do actually store this metadata somewhere in their internal databases, but they don’t expose it on their website. It is published in a series of Excel files which Ofsted publish on a regular basis and have pointed to in response to a number of FoI requests.

The problem with these spreadsheets are twofold:

1. the spreadsheets are poorly structured for data access
2. they have a termly lag-time i.e. they are published termly in arrears

And this leads to the full proposal ….

The Pitch

I want us to build a prototype web service that will allow 3rd party sites (including .gov.uk sites) to grab some very useful Ofsted information in format(s) suitable for web use and display it on their site. The information to include:

• the date of the last Ofted inspection
• the overall judgement of the inspector(s) on the school at that date
• a link to the schools Ofsted homepage, in order to provide context to the user if the want/need it

The second part of this project is for the non-geeks. It’s a policy/engagement issue. I’d really like to get some talking heads to put together some ideas for how we can engage with Ofsted and persuade them to do some or all of the following:

• take over the hosting and publishing of the service
• reduce the latency of the published data by included ALL recent inspections in the service
• publish the source data in more open and accessible formats rather than the current cumbersome Excel files

There’s something there for everyone – developers, data bods, policy wonks, as well as the persuaders. I look forward to seeing you there.

Postscript

I’ve hacked the spreadsheets previously and cobbled together a combined datasheet of all the relevant inspections from 2000-2009 and uploaded them to my public dropbox folder. That can be used as the source data for a prototype.

If also had a couple of thoughts on data structure and I guess I’m thinking that the returned data should probably be available in xml, json and perhaps (x)html.

An XML snippet might be something like:

<inspection urn="123456">
     <date>2012-01-20</date>
     <judgement_grade>2</judgement_grade>
     <judgement>Good</judgement>
     <comment>This information should be interpreted in the context of the full report which is available from the Ofsted page below</comment>
     <ofsted_uri>http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/123456</ofsted_uri>
</inspection>

And most of the data can be linked from here

My idea is to require that in every English school (the devolved governments can make their own structural change), one of the performance management (PM) targets for the headteacher, will have a technological focus. Every year.

The governing body of each maintained school appoints 2 or 3 of it’s members as the PM committee whose role is

• to set 3 PM targets for the Head for the current year
• monitor and evaluate the Head’s progress towards those targets
• make recommendations to the GB at the end of the year about salary uplift for the ead

If we can get government to recognise the tech deficit, then surely an overall programme of tech awareness, understanding and adeptness will begin to pay dividends. And our schools can be the cradle for this innovation, just like they were when that first BBC Micro arrived at the school reception 30 years ago. But we will need some subtle pressure and oversight to ensure it happens. So the Heads PM rules need to be tweaked to give our headteachers one of the lead roles in driving the country forward.

The tweaking needs to ensure that at least one of the PM targets for every Head will have a tech development focus. But that doesn’t require us to turn every Headteacher into a geek. On the contrary, many schools will probably need to look at their own tech infrastructure and resources – including human resources – rather than at the tech curriculum. At least in the first instance.

So let’s outline some examples of possible targets as a starting point:

• To undertake a tech skills and resources baseline assessment of the entire school community (pupils, staff, parents, local community, at school, at home, in public buildings) and to publish the results back to the whole community in a 21st century format within the current academic year
• To partner with local businesses and community to start a Computer or Coding Club and ensure it appeals to a wide cross section of pupils, parents and staff before the spring half-term
• To take school website maintenance in-house and reduce the cost of maintaining a web presence by 70% in the next financial year

Each of these examples are SMART. I’m sure the dev and activist communities can produce another 10 example SMART targets within 24 hours.

If the government can commit to making this change to the PM rules, then the quid pro quo from us would be to create a free support and advisory infrastructure for Heads and Governing Bodies to enable them to make this work. A starting point would be some simple wiki pages, but that will need to expand into a database of local geeks able and willing to lend a hand in devising appropriate targets and in measuring success. But the will exists to do that now, so lets harness it now.

15yob returns to his game.

A quick look around the ward shows that it is teaming with hitech kit. A PC, a PS2 and a PS3, a Wii, an Xbox (of incredible vintage), flat screen tv, old CRT for PS2, blue Ray, and an array of remote controls. I can understand why a 15yob might expect to be able to connect to the wifi that he can see.

Let’s look a little more closely at his expectations of the NHS and compare it to the actual offerings.

15 year old boy: what’s the wifi password on this ward?

Expectation 1: there is a wifi connection – I should be able to use it
Expectation 2: The nurse will know the password and will probably give it to me

Wow! I don’t know about you, but I find it extremely uplifting that our teenagers (and future electorate) feel that if there is a wifi signal in a public place they should be able to connect to it. That tells me where society is moving to and that we will eventually have a tech enabled society.

That 15yob would expect the nurse to know the password is a little strange to me. I wouldn’t expect that. But I think the implied expectation, that ‘those in the know’ would know the password, is one that again uplifts me and gives me a sense of hope.

Offering 1: There is a wifi connection available in the ward. It is password protected. Not sure if anyone/anything is actually using it. One thing is certain. Patients currently can’t use it.

Conclusion

So where does that leave us? The NHS is not living up to the expectations of our kids, because it doesn’t understand what our kids want or expect.

So politicians, please don’t make grandiose plans for the future of the NHS when the organisation doesn’t understand the basics.

I’m at the Bright Lemon/Kasabi Open Government hackday today and thought that perhaps a blogpost about the day might prove to be a useful record of the day. After a set of round-the-tableintroductions, Leigh Dodds did a brief run through on Kasabi. This introduced the latest NHS datasets loaded onto Kasabi and their functionality.

Kasabi Default APIs

One of the most difficult things for me to get my head around were the 5 default APIs available for every Kasabi hosted dataset. I have linked to the documentation pages for each of these:

• Augmentation API
• Lookup API
• Reconciliation API
• Search API
• SPARQL Endpoint

SPARQL Endpoint

The SPARQL Endpoint for each dataset will provide access to a SPARQL  API Tester or Experimental API Explorer. It also links to any example SPARQL queries that have been defined for  a dataset e.g. List all UK Primary Care Trusts on some of the NHS data.

Dataset homepages

The homepage for each dataset shows a descriptive section above and, below, three tabs -

• API – lists the APIs (including the default 5 above) available for a dataset
• Explore – displays a list of ways that the data can be viewed (including the default “As linked data” layout  - the linked data void description default URL) -
• Attribution – shows ways in which data or output can be attributed to Kasabi.

Getting started with SPARQL on Kasabi

PREFIX ns: <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/factbook/ns#>

SELECT ?s ?p ?o WHERE {
?p a ns:Country.
}

PREFIX ns: <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/factbook/ns#>

SELECT * WHERE {
 ?s ?o ?p .  
} LIMIT 10

PREFIX ns: <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/factbook/ns#>

DESCRIBE <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/factbook/resource/Ireland>

PREFIX ns: <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/factbook/ns#>

SELECT * WHERE {
 ?s ns:factbookcode ?p .  
}

PREFIX ns: <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/factbook/ns#>

SELECT distinct ?o WHERE {
 ?s ?o ?p .  
} ORDER BY ?o

The delegates were treated to a series of performance improvement tips from two of our leading XSLT practitoners.

I thought they were worth sharing more widely.

1. Use Keys

- No performance problem has ever been solved by NOT using keys.
- Learn to use and key()

2. Don’t use preceding:: when you mean preceding-sibling::

- And forget an index position i.e. preceding-sibling::p[1]

3. <xsl:variable/> – select vs value-of

- If you use <xsl:variable name-=”a”><xsl:value-of select=”node-a”/></xsl:variable> then stop. This is a very expensive unnecessary node creation operation.
- Use <xsl:variable name-=”a”  select=”node-a”/> instead.

4. Arithemetic

- In XSLT 2.0 think about using DOUBLE arithmetic, instead of DECIMAL arithmetic, especially on joins.

5. On the fly spreadsheets

- If generating on-the-fly stylesheets, e.g. in XProc pipelines, consider compile-time performance issues, which in other situations are probably not an issue.

6. Small Changes x Multiple Iterations = Poor Performance

- XSLT can have poor performance in a situation where multiple transforms, or iterations of the same transform, are changing small parts of a large source document. The overhead of multiple copying of large quantities of unchanged nodes may mean it would be preferable to choose a different technology. XQuery Update might be more suitable.

7. Profiling in XSLT (1)

- XSLT profiling is available in Saxon and is used by tools like Oxygen.

8. Profiling in XSLT (2)

- Subtractive Measurement can be used in profiling. If you are concerned about a particular part of your transform, you can measure the time cost by removing the operation and measuring again.

9. Benefits of typing

- Where possible you should use data typing in your schemas. It speeds up validation no end.

10.  minOccurs/maxOccurs

- If you use non-zero values in minOccurs/maxOccurs in your schemas, the larger the values then the slower the validation will be, because the parser will need to count the number of elements.
- So its much much quicker to validate minOccurs=1 than it is to validate minOccurs=101.

It was her point 5:

Linked data does not have to be open data. Public services would benefit tremendously from using linked data formats. It means that we could stop spending resources on data aggregation and start spending it on analysis and action. Linked data can be used in secure settings to help partners share personal, sensitive or commercial information on performance and resources and help better target those in need or areas for improvement.

I just wonder if we can create tools to make it easier to convert data TO linked data formats, whether we would find more people publishing in those formats? You still need to be a bit of a geek to get data into Linked Data formats.

1. Governors know stakeholders’ views of the school

Governors ensure that the school regularly seeks the views of all stakeholders and is seen to act upon them. They are able to evidence where the views of parents’, pupils’ and staff (and other stakeholders’) have changed school policy.

2. The Governing Body holds the school to account and is accountable for its performance to stakeholders

Governors can demonstrate challenge in their minutes from committee and full governing body meetings. Governors know what actions the school has taken to bring about improvement and be able to justify these to stakeholders. Governors regularly communicate with stakeholders.

3. Governors know their school is at the heart of community

Governors recognise the importance of schools being at the heart of their communities and this is reflected in their work. They will know how their school’s facilities are used for community use and what links the school has with its local community (including other schools and colleges). Governors have plans in place to further develop this aspect of the school’s work.

4. Governors are good advocates for the school

Governors take every opportunity to promote the school and its interests to all stakeholders and the wider community. Governors participate in school events and are visible in and around the school. Governors make themselves available to meet with external visitors where appropriate.

5. Governors own the school’s aims and objectives

Governors take full ownership of the school aims and objectives. These are regularly and rigorously reviewed and care is taken to ensure they reflect the school’s position within its community.

1. Governors know their school well

Governors are not strangers to their school. They visit the school when it is in session and take time to speak with staff and pupils, to get first hand knowledge of their perspective.

2. The Governing Body challenges and supports the school

Governors can demonstrate challenge in their minutes from committee and full governing body meetings. Governors understand that challenge is about knowing the school better and asking the “why” and “what if” questions that pupils cannot ask. Governors support the work of the school and balance this with challenge to drive standards forward.

3. The Governing Body monitors and evaluates the work of the school

Governor monitoring plans are closely matched to the school’s priorities for improvement. Governors understand that it is not their job to directly monitor teaching or learning, though passive monitoring is recognised as a vital part of their work. Visits to school do form a vital part of governor monitoring. Governors decide which major decisions will be evaluated and this is part of the regular work programme.

4. The Governing Body has a good understanding of the school’s strengths and weaknesses

Governors have a balanced view of their school brought about through involvement in and understanding of the self evaluation process: they know the school’s strengths both in terms of standards and other aspects of its work. This is balanced with an informed view of those areas of the school’s work, including standards, where improvement is needed.

5. Governors respect confidentiality

Governors understand collective responsibility and the need to stand by corporate decisions. Governors fully understand why confidentiality must be maintained in order to protect staff, pupils and the interests of the school.

So I decided it was necessary to explode some of the myths, and put everyone straight. These FAQs are the result. Enjoy.

What’s a Revenue Balance when it’s at home?

Good first question, but unfortunately it’s at the heart of the myths around the subject. There seems to be a modicum of disagreement about the definitive definition. In general terms, a Revenue Balance (in English schools terminology) is the amount left over in a school’s budget at the end of a financial year.

What is so complicated about that?

Well, lets look at an example. Suppose an average sized primary school receives £500,000 for its annual budget, and during the year spends £500,000, what would be it’s Revenue Balance?

Thats easy. It’s £0 isn’t it?

You would think so wouldn’t you. Actually, it depends on how much they started with. Suppose they carried forward a balance of £50,000 from the previous year, then the Revenue Balance would be £50,000.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

You’re quick, you are. And that’s not the only thing that doesn’t make sense. What the DCSF are getting stressed about is not that schools are not spending the money devolved to them each year. They’re also peeved if schools don’t spend everything left over from last year. And that’s the economics of the madhouse.

The economics of the madhouse? What on earth do you mean?

Let’s look at what has been going on with the total Revenue Balance figures per year (see table below). In his ministerial statement, Vernon Coaker suggest that about £500 million of that is excessive.

But surely Vernon and his colleagues really don’t know how that balance got there in the first place. Looking at those annual figures, most of it could be leftover from previous years. If we go back to our average school (School A) above, with a budget of £500K, assuming they are a primary school, they are allowed 8% (£40K) as abalance before it becomes excessive. Let’s also assume that there is a neighbouring school – School B – which has exactly the same budget, the same staffing structure, the same pupil profile, and that coincidentally it is identical to School A in every respect except one.

Lets suppose School A has a very nice parent who has 3 businesses; one which does grounds maintenance, another which does boiler maintenance and the last which does ICT support. And this parent gives the school a really good deal in those 3 areas, saving them £10,000 per annum. In 5 years School A will have an’ excessive’ balance, at least in DCSF terms, because they have a kind and helpful parent.

I guess Vernon Coaker’s response would be that the school should have a set of optional priorities in it’s School Development Plan to spend the money on, and he’s right. Unfortunately he doesn’t have a copy of the SDP and doesn’t know what the school’s priorities are. But here is a group of people who do. They are the school’s governors. I’ll bet they know what the £50K is being kept for.

How can you be so sure?

I can’t, but I’m willing to bet my own money that in most schools I’d be right. And anyway, if the governors don’t know what the money is being saved for, then they should. It’s an indication that this school is not being managed/governed very well. But that’s a different problem, and the answer to it is not clawing back some of the excess. Instead it’s about taking back the whole delegated budget. But (un)fortunately that’s unlikely to happen.

Why?

Because that’s a response usually reserved for failing schools that tend to overspend.

Are you suggesting that there is a link between revenue balances and school performance?

Yes I am. Because I was sick and tired of hearing this uninformed nonsense coming from the DCSF, I decided this year to see if I could make a link. And I suceeded.
Using the Revenue Balance figures recently released, and all the Ofsted Inspection judgements for the last 5 years, I was able to correlate the overall Ofsted judgement against the revenue balance of the school that year.

But first I Xtabulated school phase against school type and averaged the Revenue Balance %age. Interesting to see that it is foundation schools – most of them old GM schools – which retains the lowest percentage. But there is not much in that analysis.

So then I added the Ofsted Inspection judgements to the mix and I Xtabulated Ofsted grade against school type and averaged the Revenue Balance %age. This was much more interesting. While there is not much difference between and amongst Outsanding, Good and Satisfactory schools, those schools deemed Unsatisfactory by Ofsted tend to have much lower Revenue Balances.

Are you saying that those schools which retain the least are the worst schools?

No I am not. What I am saying is that there is a statistical correlation between unsatisfactory Ofsted judgements and low retained balances. And it seems a bit silly to me for the DCSF to be encouraging schools to make their retained balances lower.

Please feel free to disagree or dispute any of this. I’m not a professional statistician. Prove me wrong and let me know when you have.