child protection demands either a unified national solution or a significant increase in spending by individual schools.
I don’t think this can be true. Child protection might lead to constraints on a design, but is unlikely to be a driver to the extent you suggest. If it was, we’d expect to see unified national solutions elsewhere, and we don’t.
Could you perhaps provide more detail on what the connection is here?
David, thanks for the reply. What I was getting at is the responsibility, currently met by the schools, to protect the children using the computer network systems provided as part of their education. The mechanism for this outside of GLOW is the local network (NOVELL, for example) logins, administered and controlled in school or a group of schools by a nominated member of staff. GLOW itself has its own mechanism – Sharepoint – to keep everybody protected within a closed system.
Google Apps (and thereby #glew) seems to be predicated on using a wider control and access system within a subset of a much larger pool of users. It may be secure but there is an issue of credibility and trust which has to be overcome in the minds of the public and the schools, through local authorities who have the legal obligation to protect the children in their care.
Is there a cast iron guarantee that not one child’s details will ever be accessed by persons unknown, or that these details will not be kept, connected and used with other information to provide a personalised browsing experience for that child once they leave school?
I’m not convinced. I’m sure government isn’t convinced.