Case Study III-8 • Purchasing a Student Management System at Jefferson County School System 509Student Administration System
Student SchedulingIncluded
Yes No- Provide for interactive entry
and correction of student course
requests and master schedule data. - Automatically process student
course requests against the master
schedule to produce class schedules
for each student. - Provide for Arena Scheduling.
- Provide for interactive drop/
add of students from classes after
initial schedules are established, at
any time. - Scheduling data must interface
with student records. - Provide for course restrictions by
grade level and/or sex. - Allow for addition of new courses
and sections at any time. - Provide current enrollment
summary of each course and section
both online and via printed report. - Provide for mass adds, deletes or
changes based on grade, sex, etc. - Online editing of valid course
number requests during entry is
required. - Provide for scheduling retries
without erasing previous scheduling
runs. - Provide for override of maximum
enrollment.
Included
Yes No- Provide for each student a year-long
schedule, with up to 20 different courses
(excluding lunch and study hall). - Provide for “prioritizing” scheduling
runs by grade level and/or student number. - Provide master schedule by teacher
listing. - Preregistration “by student” course
request report. - Preregistration “by course” request
listing. - Provide course request tally report.
- Provide potential conflict matrix.
- Provide student conflict report.
- Provide student schedules.
- Provide course and section status
summary. - Provide course rosters by teacher.
- Provide room utilization report with
conflict alert. - Provide teacher utilization report
with conflict alert. - Provide schedule exception listing
showing student and open periods
(by either closed or conflict status),
also show all filled periods. - Provide scheduling by quarter,
semester, year-long, or trimester
options.
EXHIBIT 2 (Continued)Systems Corporation installation. Andrews and Dr. Paul
Faris, Assistant Principal at Roosevelt High, spent one day
at each of these locations observing their systems in action
and talking with users. In addition, members of the com-
mittee made telephone calls to their counterparts at other
schools that used each vendor’s systems without unearthing
any major problems or concerns. Everyone seemed quite
positive about all three vendors and their products.
The committee had a difficult time deciding between
the three finalists. Each of the vendors proposed software
packages in all the areas that JCSS had asked for, but none of
these systems did exactly what they wanted in exactly the
way the current systems did things. The committee finally
chose Data Systems, Inc., (DSI) because the members felt
they could work well with the DSI people, and they felt that
the DSI proposal was best on balance, as indicated in Exhibit
3, which they presented to the JCSS School Board. This
table rates six factors on a scale from 1 to 5, with a total rat-
ing for each of the finalist vendors at the bottom. DSI was
rated highest in “Application Software” because its system
was a Web-based system, and the committee felt that this
was the technology of the future. DSI had recently converted
the functionality of its legacy systems to the Web-based
architecture and had only installed it at three school systems,
so the committee was aware that it might have more bugs
than if the system had been in use for several years. The
“cost of ownership” includes the purchase price of the soft-
ware, installation, training, and five years of maintenance