Little SIS for Classroom Feature Requests


Allow for the default state of new classes to be "ACTIVE" rather than "PROVISIONED"

Arguments given for this include:

  • Defaulting a class to active may reduce the number of "DECLINED" classes in some contexts, increasing adoption of centrally-provisioned classes and reducing administrative frictions.
  • This option could be allowed, but not set as the default in a job.


Potential risks:

  • Students in an "ACTIVE" class are able to see / enter / interact with the class immediately.   This fact may not be known to Little SIS administrators, and may pose a risk of user error that puts students and/or staff at some risk.  Allowing this option would require some strong warnings to be in place within the app.
  • Provisioning classes directly to the "ACTIVE" state will make it harder for folks to distinguish classes a teacher actively engaged with from those that the teacher never bothered to touch.  Cleanup of unused classes and monitoring of teacher engagement gets less clear / more complicated when fewer states are used to understand teacher engagement.
  • Giving teachers "no choice" in adoption can have blowback from an IT change-management perspective, and should be approached carefully.
  • Andrew Stillman
  • Aug 18 2017
  • Attach files
  • Bryan Mulvany commented
    August 18, 2017 14:11

    The current default of PROVISIONED then REQUIRES teachers to take an action for every section they teach.  That would seem totally counter-intuitive to our teachers, and I'm SURE we would get "pushback" from our teachers union, perhaps even as far as it being a "change in working conditions."  Sounds strange I know, but they push back on things like this all the time!!  ;-(  Again, we are only asking that this be added as an option for school districts that don't want/need to require teachers to take an action step for every section they teach.  We certainly don't ask them to take such an action step within our SIS, so I'm sure many of our teachers will look at it as "extra work" if we require them to do this due to this Little SIS limitation.

  • Bryan Mulvany commented
    August 18, 2017 14:14

    Could you explain what you mean by "blowback from an IT change/management perspective" in the initial comment?  I have no idea what that means, nor can I think of any negative IT implications from allowing an option to create classes at ACTIVE.??

  • Bryan Mulvany commented
    August 18, 2017 14:21

    In the second bullet above, I also think that looking at the "number of assignments" is a better way to determine whether a teacher ever "actively engaged" with a class vs. whether they accepted the class or not.  If a teacher just accepts a class but never actually does anything within the class, we would want to clean those instances up as well as classes teachers never accepted.  Our larger concern is that teachers who aren't using Classroom just yet could blow through and reject all their classes thinking they will never use Classroom, then take some PD later in the year, decide they want to begin using Classroom, and now we have no way to go back and recover the class they rejected initially.  Trying to deal with this situation seems like it would be much more of an "IT blowback" than creating classes in an ACTIVE state from the start.

  • Admin
    Andrew Stillman commented
    August 18, 2017 16:03

    Response to Bryan:  Concern re: teacher blowback would be from those who feel "forced" to use Classroom in an environment where that's not already a widespread norm, or in places where T's want to manage their rosters differently than the way the SIS sections are organized.


    Totally understand that this is going to be a context-specific issue, and best judged by folks on the ground.  Still worth noting as a risk IMO.