Our next fireside chat is with Schools ICT Service Manager and all-round MIS expert, Keren Wild.

Schools ICT is a fully traded service of NYCC working through North Yorkshire Education Services (NYES), which means they work with all types of organisations and education settings across the UK, not just in North Yorkshire.

We’ve known Keren for many years, and it’s great to speak with colleagues from MIS support teams as it gives such a unique and insightful view of the landscape. In this Q&A, we chat about a wide range of topics including:

• The North Yorks framework and how this has given choice to the schools
• The value that Support Teams offer to Edtech companies; how support teams protect their schools and take away the pain of IT
• How technology has encouraged primary schools to make different choices, especially with the added pressure of Covid closures
• How Support Teams will evolve in the future to include wider services, multi-MIS, more competition, and becoming being a partner to MATs
• Academisation and its role in moving Primary schools to cloud-based solutions
• The role of Senior leaders in the decision change MIS, and how this can be a challenge
• How well schools’ understand data and what an MIS can do for them
• Anytime, anywhere access to MIS and how this has become even more important since Covid
• How secondary schools feel about cloud MIS options
• Usability and change, and what challenger MIS could do to make their solutions slicker
• The difference between ‘one-stop shop’ and ‘best of breed’ solutions
• The opportunities for Edtech to partner with support providers as they have insights and connections which will give Edtech companies insights to the customer

What does it mean when we talk about MIS solutions being intuitive? The concept of something being ‘intuitive’ often gets mistaken for ‘basic’; there’s a belief that something is intuitive to use because it’s not rich functionally, but this is simply not the case. The smartphones we use today are some of the most sophisticated tech consumers have ever carried around – and they don’t come with instructions. We know how to use them because we’ve grown up with the more basic mobiles; one of the reasons we find them intuitive to use is because we learnt the old stuff the hard way!

Also, companies (in particular gaming companies) have identified ways to make it easy for us to use their systems using clever software such as WalkMe; the goal is to reduce friction and allow users to play games or use systems starting with the most basic flows, then introducing you to the more complicated features later.

It’s a similar story with MIS, but the idea that something will be hard to learn still holds people back when it comes to looking at alternatives – especially if their recollection of learning the existing system was painful.

It’s rarely the case though, and a good analogy here is that of learning to drive. You don’t have to re-take your driving test every time you get a new car.  You know how to drive already; you just need to find out what’s different in the new car and get used to using it.  It’s easy, and the new stuff is usually the best stuff (hello sat nav and park assist!)

It’s the same when you change your Management Information System.  You don’t need to go on lengthy training courses or re-learn from scratch. You know how to use an MIS already; you just need to find out what’s different in the new system and get used to using it.

A recent survey¹ of 2,146 schools asked, amongst other things, how intuitive their MIS is for new users.  The pie chart below summarises the responses:

The vast majority of respondents (38.15%) fell into the satisfied category which is good to see, with a further 25.34% taking the middle ground saying they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. However, what’s surprising here is that over a quarter of respondents (25.39%) said they were either dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied when asked how intuitive their MIS is for new users. It’s a worrying stat as no MIS supplier sets out to make a solution that’s prohibitively difficult to use.

According to the Interaction Design Foundation, members of the interdisciplinary research group Intuitive Use of User Interface offer the following definition of intuitive use:

“A technical system is—in a specific context of a user goal—intuitively usable to the degree the user is able to interact with it effectively by applying knowledge unconsciously.”

Based on this definition, there are a few reasons why respondents might not feel like their MIS is intuitive for new users:

• If the MIS you use now is the MIS you’ve always used, it’s likely that you may not consider it to be intuitive as you remember your first learning curve.
• Newer, SaaS MIS may be perceived as more intuitive as their users have used something previously so ‘know how to drive’ and won’t find it a challenge.
• Equally, solutions based on more recent technology will likely be easier to work with as they don’t have the old legacy-system hang-ups of having to navigate out of one module and into another. It will undoubtedly be an easier and more seamless experience.
• For brand new users, solutions built on more recent technology tend to require minimal training and are easier to learn. Older systems involved attending courses – which often made them all the more difficult to roll out to teaching staff given the time required.

The graph below shows a breakdown of the survey results for the ‘Big 5’ who, between them, they make up 96% of school market share² (namely Arbor, Bromcom, RM Integris, ScholarPack and SIMS):

Ultimately, how intuitive an MIS solution is perceived to be is down to a combination of things:

• How easy the solution is to access, and how quick it is to navigate
• How confident the user is with technology as a whole?
• How experienced the user is with MIS and the concepts of records, data dependencies and analysis
• How the user was introduced to the solution in the first place. For example:
  • Did they start the role when it was already in place, so they ‘had’ to use it? If so, what sort of intro did they have to the system?
  • Were they part of a team where the school started using a system for the first time? If so, what was their introduction to the MIS like?
• How well supported they are throughout, and the source of the support (local team, colleagues, provider, someone else?)

But most importantly of all, the concept of a solution being intuitive or not comes down to how well the product managers, designers and developers know their users, and how much time they spend listening and understanding.

The point is MIS users already know how to use intuitive software.  If they don’t have a basic understanding of how to use the MIS software by playing around with it for a few minutes then, as an MIS supplier, you’ve sadly missed the mark.  But if you work alongside your users on what’s important to them (and avoid the pitfall of developing something clever and technical just because you can), you can deliver a solution that users can take to without having to hesitate and wonder how they can execute an action.

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England, by email. It was not sent to independent schools. The survey was completed by Headteachers, Deputy and Assistant Heads, and School Business Managers / Leaders between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked which MIS they use. The results are outlined below:

²Market share statistics are sourced from two excellent blogs: Graham Reed’s Omega Pegasus https://www.omegapegasus.com/mischallenge and Josh Perry’s Bring More Data https://bringmoredata.blogspot.com/

When asked, the majority of schools say that functionality is most important to them when looking for an MIS. But what does ‘functionality’ actually mean?

The idea of functionality means different things to different users. If you’re an experienced MIS/data manager who users the MIS to undertake detailed daily/weekly/termly routines, then complex functionality might be your cup of tea. If you are an occasional MIS user who looks to the solution more for reports and analysis, your idea of perfect functionality is simplicity and intuitiveness.

How you rate the functionality of your MIS is personal to you and will be based on, amongst other things:

• Experience with systems
• Role within school
• Proximity to the system (e.g. a daily super-user v arms-length, occasional use)
• Previous use of alternate MIS to draw comparisons
• Understanding of what might be possible in the future within MIS
• Level of training received

Ultimately, different users require their MIS and data to do different things. To understand how effective an MIS is, it’s worth looking at it from the perspective of the user (not the system) and asking:

• Does the MIS give them the tools to do their job well on an individual level?
• Does the MIS help them work as part of a team of many people?

A recent survey¹ of 2,146 schools asked, amongst other things, how effective they felt their MIS was at providing the data they needed to do their job well.  The pie chart below summarises the responses:

To examine the findings in more detail, the graph below shows a breakdown of the survey results for the ‘Big 5’ who, between them, they make up 96% of school market share² (namely Arbor, Bromcom, RM Integris, ScholarPack and SIMS):

Over half of respondents scored their MIS positively, saying it was either Very effective or Extremely effective.  This is good to hear, and exactly what MIS solutions are striving to achieve in their functionality and user experience. In addition, only a relatively small percentage, 15.69% in total, scored their MIS negatively, saying it was Not so effective or Not at all effective (it would be interesting to understand what data they need to do their job which their MIS is not providing, it could be a great opportunity to develop something new!)

The survey¹ also asked how effective they felt their MIS was at helping them to collaborate with colleagues. The responses to this question tell a different story. As you can see from the pie chart and graph below, a much lower number of respondents scored their MIS positively (Extremely or Very effective) at only 35.51%, and a much higher number scored it negatively (Not so or Not at all effective) 29.76%.  The majority, however, scored their MIS neutrally, as Somewhat effective.

• The cloud-based MIS solutions scored highest across the board for both questions.
• Where MIS scored highly for collaborative working, cloud-related features such as ease of access are likely to have played a part.
• Where MIS scored highly for providing the data required to do their job well, a contributing factor is likely to be how well supported and trained the users are on the solution.

So what do these findings tell us?

Overall, respondents seem to be fairly happy with the data the MIS gives them to do their job, but less happy with how it helps them work with colleagues. As we move more and more towards using technology to work collaboratively (the pandemic-related lockdowns brought this sharply into focus!), it’s important for MIS to keep pace with its learning counterparts.

Collaboration is a key part of the success of any organisation and schools are no exception. Operational teams, senior leaders and teaching staff all need to be able to collaborate with each other, and also with other establishments. It will be interesting to see how MIS solutions help schools handle this tricky task in the future.

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England, by email. It was not sent to independent schools. The survey was completed by Headteachers, Deputy and Assistant Heads, and School Business Managers / Leaders between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked which MIS they use. The results are outlined below:

²Market share statistics are sourced from two excellent blogs: Graham Reed’s Omega Pegasus https://www.omegapegasus.com/mischallenge and Josh Perry’s Bring More Data https://bringmoredata.blogspot.com/

Continuing our series of edtech thought leader interviews, I recently caught up with independent consultant and former colleague of mine, Tony Lockwood.  Tony describes himself as having had a career of two halves: one in Education as Head of Science in a Nottinghamshire Secondary School, and one as Head of Product Management at Capita Education Software Solutions (now part of ParentPay Group).

Nowadays, Tony advises MATs and schools on getting more out of their Management Information and other Admin software systems, as well as subscribing to additional systems or changing suppliers. As an independent product consultant, he also provides help for EdTech companies to improve the performance of their products and develop new solutions.

In part 1 we discuss:

• the key changes Tony has noticed in the last 3 years
• the consolidation of businesses with Private Equity to provide a larger value proposition
• how, even though MATs came into the market some time ago, solutions are very much still fixed on schools
• MIS as a platform, and the future of MIS

In part 2 we cover:

• What’s next for the MIS market, and the challenges that SIMS has and that even though they have a loyal customer base
• The challenger MIS and which suppliers Tony expects to do well.
• What makes a good tech company and what we can learn from Spotify, where a lot of companies see themselves as tech companies but they should see themselves as service providers.
• The fact that educators and suppliers need to be more curious to deliver better value

The extent to which an MIS is used by a school is usually dependent on quite a few different factors:

• How well they understand what the MIS can actually do for them over and above standard pupil census type stuff
• How easy it is to use, but also how intuitive it is to learn for new users (which we’ll explore more in a future blog)
• The training the users received at the outset; did it inspire the implementation of new ways of doing things and leave the users enthused?
• How easy MIS companies and support teams make it for users to gain the value they are after? E.g., completing a process or gaining the insight they require.
• How easy it is to get help in the event of coming across a problem (or, looking at it from the opposite side, how soon will users abandon it if it feels too much like hard work)?

For all MIS suppliers, providing an innovative but intuitive product is only half of the story. It’s the support that goes around it which makes it a solution that will really satisfy your customers and embed the solution throughout the school with staff, parents, governors and students alike. Every supplier offers direct user and tech support to their customers – either included as standard as part of their cloud MIS or, for some, via the purchase of an additional support contract.

However, there is another very important group of stakeholders here who play an important role in supporting the use of MIS, and that’s local support teams. It’s a relationship that has evolved over the years, so this blog aims to look at the role of support teams, the MIS suppliers, and schools’ views on the support they receive.

Historically, the concept of who provided MIS support to a school was closely tied to how the MIS licences were procured to begin with. Back when all schools were LA-controlled maintained schools, the majority of Local Authorities in England and Wales, plus Northern Ireland, procured MIS on behalf of their schools on the basis that it would be them who provided the support those schools needed in the use of the system. The LA support teams would only then contact their MIS supplier (the majority were SIMS users) for 2^nd and 3^rd line support.

As the way in which authorities and schools are funded has gradually changed, and especially with the introduction of academisation over a decade ago, the dynamic between schools and support teams has changed (check out this blog post for more on this subject). Independent teams have formed out of the old authority-schools-only teams; commercially-focused, multi-MIS support teams are building great support partnerships with schools and MATs alike.

Everyone is happy to work with schools and academies outside of the traditional LA boundaries, and schools are no longer beholden to their LA choice of MIS offering when they are able to procure any MIS direct from any supplier they wish at a competitive price. The dynamic has changed, and more choice will undoubtedly benefit schools and users.

What impact has this had on where schools get their MIS support?

A recent survey¹ of 2,146 schools asked, amongst other things, who they contacted most often for support with their MIS. The chart below shows the survey results for the ‘Big 5’ who, between them, make up 96% of school market share² ( Arbor, Bromcom, RM Integris, ScholarPack and SIMS):

Chart: Response to the survey question “Who do you contact most often for support?”

The first thing that stands out here is the big chunk of respondents who said a colleague was who they contact most often for support, ranging from around 28% to 52% across the suppliers). It most likely accurately reflects the people it was sent to, who were Headteachers, Deputy and Assistant Heads, and School Business Managers/Leaders. Many of these would ask a colleague for support with their MIS instead of calling/emailing a support team – it tends to be only one or two main MIS users who log cases and place calls. You can draw a couple of conclusions from this:

• Having an MIS expert or superuser in-school is SO important as it is likely they will be relied upon by other staff; working closely with your customers to ensure there is a champion is a good thing!
• A lot of questions/issues with MIS are being dealt with in-school and never reach MIS suppliers or even their support partners. This is a good thing in terms of metrics such as case volumes, but it would be interesting to understand exactly what people ask other colleagues for help with, as it may be that an opportunity is being missed to develop or improve.

(N.B. It’s worth noting here that the schools the respondents are from will have a support arrangement of some kind, either with a local support team or the MIS supplier themselves. However, it’s not possible to tell which it is from this data).

The second thing that stands out is the fact that a much larger number of RM Integris and SIMS respondents (around 41%-42%) contact their local support unit for support compared to Arbor, Bromcom and ScholarPack. This is probably due to the fact that these suppliers have very long-established relationships with LA support teams which combines their MIS with other solutions including infrastructure, hardware, security, and other services³. The other MIS are catching up though, with each developing their own Partner Programmes and working with local support teams to help them become accredited support providers.

We can also gain insight into how happy schools are with the level of support they are getting – irrespective of the route they choose to take it.  The chart below outlines the survey results for the Big 5 when the respondents were asked how they rated the quality of support they receive:

Chart: Response to survey question “How do you rate the quality of MIS support you receive?”

Towards the top end of the scale with the highest proportion of respondents stating that they were ‘Extremely satisfied’ were Arbor (43.14%), Scholarpack (38.31%) and RM Integris (34.57%).  RM Integris and ScholarPack also recorded the smallest proportion of respondents stating they were ‘Extremely dissatisfied’ – both were below 1% (0.62% for RM Integris and 0.65% for ScholarPack).

The Evolution of Support

If we were to compare how and where schools take MIS support from to say, even 10 years ago, the landscape has changed dramatically. Depending on the supplier, anything from 19% to 64% of their customer base are taking support from the MIS supplier directly; this would have been more like 5% to 15% in the early 2000s.

So where does this leave the concept of local MIS support contracts? Is this something schools no longer feel they need if they can go straight to their MIS supplier?

Not at all! Good support teams help schools with so much more than simple button-pressing when it comes to their MIS. The progressive, dynamic teams are also more than happy to support their schools irrespective of which MIS they use. As they will tell you, they ‘support the process, not the product’ which means their schools and academies have choice. On top of that, many local support teams have longstanding relationships with schools going back 20 or 30 years; they support them in everything from creating and implementing assessment policy, preparing for last-minute Ofsted visits, developing overall school/academy/MAT strategy, delivering budget savings, creating the right reports for SLT, governors and trustees, rolling out new tech and devices so everyone can access, the list is endless.

It’s true, not all support teams are created equal, and there will be differences in service levels across the country, but many work in genuine partnership with their schools in everything they can. Where the MIS suppliers provide excellent direct school support, but then also build great partnerships with support teams to help them work with their schools, is where you’ll likely see the most customer satisfaction and loyalty.

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England, by email. It was not sent to independent schools. The survey was completed by Headteachers, Deputy and Assistant Heads, and School Business Managers / Leaders between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked which MIS they use. The results are outlined below:

²Market share statistics are sourced from two excellent blogs: Graham Reed’s Omega Pegasus https://www.omegapegasus.com/mischallenge and Josh Perry’s Bring More Data https://bringmoredata.blogspot.com/

³This may not necessarily be the case for ESS SIMS following acquisition but, for the period 1994 to 2021, SIMS was owned by Capita who provided a large portfolio of services and solutions to Local Authorities.

“It saves you time.”

This is something that is often said about MIS, but what does it mean? More importantly, how effective do schools feel their MIS actually is at saving them time?

A recent survey¹ of 2,146 schools asked, amongst other things, how effective they felt their MIS is at saving them time. The overall results are outlined in the pie chart below:

As you can see, the majority of respondents (just over a third at 38.85%) went for the middle ground and said it was ‘Somewhat effective’. That said, a combined total of 43% did say they felt it was either Very or Extremely effective which is good news for suppliers as it indicates users must be feeling some time-saving benefits from their solutions.

We can also break this down further by MIS; the chart below shows survey results for the ‘Big 5’ (who, between them, they make up 96% of school market share²):

But what does the idea of ‘saving time’ actually mean when it comes to systems and users? There are a number of ways of defining it, here are just a few:

1. The MIS literally takes a basic, manual process and uses software to make it easier. A good example of this would be the school census; it has to be done in a certain timeframe, it’s very data-heavy, and the role of MIS in this is to make it as automated as possible, therefore saving time.

2. The MIS brings an automated element to improve a process and create a more complete view. A good example of this is the ability to record and manage behaviour within MIS; it’s something that all schools have (and use things such as paper report cards in secondary) but, once they start to utilise their MIS for this, the increased shared knowledge means teachers have the info at their fingertips and don’t need to waste time searching for it.

3. The MIS completely replaces the way something has always been done to make it easier and slicker. For example, communicating with parents used to be via letters and reports. MIS’ offer the ability to email, text and direct message via apps, plus parent portals. Another good example is the handling of money; everything from school dinner management to online trip payments can now be done online, completely replacing the original processes and saving time.

4. The MIS provides insight that would otherwise have been time-consuming to find out. A good example of this is analytics and dashboards which draw on data from a number of sources to help leaders ask questions, and also provide answers.

5. The MIS suggests courses of action based on data. This is something we have yet to see in use in a big way, but the idea is that your MIS can make some suggestions to you using machine learning based on a combination of what it has seen work in the past, plus your usual actions. Think about when you shop online at Amazon, the site makes suggestions for other products based on your purchases and what other customers go on to buy. A school-based example could be that various intervention suggestions are made when behaviour incidents are recorded, and these could be based on past actions combined with, say, the MATs own intervention policy. The time savings here could be enormous – as well as getting a strategy in place sooner to help the child.

So there are definitely ways MIS solutions can save time, it’s really a matter of understanding how.

As an MIS supplier, saying you “save schools time” isn’t a meaningful statement anymore that sets you apart from the competition. It’s a given that a solution will do that; your unique value proposition should focus on how it will do it, why it’s important, and what benefits the school will get as a result.

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England, by email. It was not sent to independent schools. The survey was completed by Headteachers, Deputy and Assistant Heads, and School Business Managers / Leaders between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked which MIS they use. The results are outlined below:

²Market share statistics are sourced from two excellent, independent blogs: Graham Reed’s Omega Pegasus and Josh Perry’s Bring More Data 

Continuing our series of edtech thought leader interviews, I recently caught up with Martin Hall, Senior Product Manager for MIS at RM.

Having spoken with almost all other major MIS suppliers in England, I’ve been wanting to speak with RM on their plans for the Integris solution for a while. RM Integris is the second-largest MIS supplier in England in terms of market share, and RM also offers an ecosystem of other school management solutions which work alongside their MIS, including their own finance solution.

In part 1 of this fireside chat, we discuss:

• How RM has changed over the years, having started as a couple of people building servers in their garage to becoming a global education company
• The 3 key pillars of business for RM, and their plans to invest in their Integris MIS and finance solutions
• How customers expectations have changed, and how RM works with them to allow them to focus on students’ progress – the most important thing
• Where RM are currently with their Integris MIS: how it works with RM Unify, what’s their partner strategy, plans for growth into new system areas (such as HR, compliance, safeguarding, etc.) and also into new phases and markets
• Their approach to future development

In part 2 we cover:

• RM’s focus on the MIS market and current competitor solutions
• What makes RM Integris different
• How the market might change in the future given recent consolidation and acquisitions
• How support has changed, especially as businesses such as SBS and Strictly Education have been acquired by one owner
• The role of LAs v the new role of Trusts: how MATs act and work differently, using data centrally and intelligently

Finally, in part 3 I ask:

• Where does Martin see the MIS market going in 5-years time?
• Can and should data be used to inform policy?
• How does RM work in partnership with schools and academies?
• How can edtech suppliers get better at delivering disruptive, and is this a good thing?

One of the biggest changes to happen to the world of school MIS was the introduction of academies, starting back in the 2000s under the then Labour government, and becoming widespread following the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition Academies Act in 2010. The concept of schools becoming their own entities as academies and leaving Local Authority control had an effect on their MIS and support choices (which we’ve touched on in a previous blog), but it also created a whole new set of stakeholders: the Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) central team.

MAT central teams need certain things from an MIS which have not really been required before. It’s always been possible to aggregate data through feeds (this happens between schools and LA teams all the time) but MAT leaders need something completely different. They need a complete view of students and staff across the trust to enable collaboration, streamline communication and effectively target resources.

As a result, MIS suppliers have started to build MAT-focused functionality into their solutions and now offer a range of resources and dashboards aimed at making the lives of the MAT central teams easier.

It’s now been more than 10 years since the first MAT was formed so we wanted to explore how well MIS suppliers were meeting the specific needs of MATs.

A recent survey¹ asked 92 MAT central teams to rate how satisfied they were with their MIS from 1-10, where 1 is “Extremely dissatisfied” and 10 is “Extremely satisfied”. Their scores are outlined below; you can see that satisfaction is generally pretty good with the majority scoring their MIS a 7, and only a few MATs giving a score of 4 or less.

Chart: MAT Satisfaction rating of their MIS from 1-10, where 1 is “Extremely dissatisfied” and 10 is “Extremely satisfied”.

The survey asked respondents to briefly explain why they gave that rating, and the running theme amongst those who gave a perfect 10 was ease of use.

The survey delves into more detail. When asked about how satisfied they were with their MIS’ ability to provide actionable information, which is so crucial to trust central teams, they appear to be largely happy in this area. The biggest group (37.6%) responded saying were satisfied with what their MIS provides. It’s worth noting though that around 19% said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and a further 26% combined stated they were Dissatisfied or Extremely Satisfied. Would this be a reason for an academy trust to look for alternate solutions in the future? Maybe.

Question: How satisfied are you with the extent to which the MIS provides actionable information?

However, when asked how satisfied they are with the Trust-specific functionality their MIS offers, the results tell a different story. The majority of respondents said that they were Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied (28.26%), followed very closely by those saying they were Extremely Dissatisfied (27.17%):

Question: How satisfied are you with the Trust-specific functionality your MIS offers?

The fact that over a quarter of all respondents said they were Extremely Dissatisfied with trust-focused functionality should set off alarm bells with MIS suppliers. Trust-focused functionality always forms a key part of the requirements when MATs go to tender for an MIS, and it feels like there’s still work to do in this area.

In a previous thought leader session Nick recorded with Rowena Hackwood, CEO at Astrea Academy Trust, they discussed this topic in more detail. Rowena’s challenge for all suppliers, not just MIS, is for them to move towards creating solutions that work for a new customer base who need a different point of view:

“Increasingly in the sector, there is a move towards stronger and more sustainable groups of schools, which isn’t a national strategy for every school to be in a MAT, but it is a national strategy for every school to be part of a more sustainable group, as it were. And it’s absolutely critical that, in your thinking, you have that in mind.

The kind of MAT dashboards that I want to be able to share with trustees align academic attainment and attendance data on the one hand, with HR, finance, governance, performance, on the other hand, and I don’t have any means at a MAT level to really draw all of those different elements in together. So my challenge, I think, to you is to move away from a school by school understanding of the English school system towards one where a huge chunk of the customer base needs a different point of view.”

Rowena Hackwood, CEO at Astrea Academy Trust

Ultimately, most of the MIS have the ability to offer reporting and insight in one way or another, using tools such as Power BI; it’s more a question of how easy and integrated these systems are, and the extent to which they provide the data the central teams need. It’s the central management issue that MATs would really like to see supported by their MIS providers, and the better they are able to help with this, the more MATs will want to work with suppliers as long-term partners across the trust.

What do you see as the main differences between what academies need vs what MAT central teams need? Do you think there’s a need for an MIS which has been built with MAT central teams in mind as the primary user (similar to IMP in creating a finance system)?

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all multi academy trusts (with two or more schools) in England, by email. These surveys were split by trusts that had just one MIS across the group of schools, and trusts that used multiple MIS suppliers. It was not sent to trusts in the independent sector. The survey was completed by central team staff such as CEOs, COOs, CFOs and others involved in MIS operations, between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

Schools are choosing to move MIS more than they ever have before. There are plenty of options out there ranging from client-based to cloud, multi-phase to age-specific, and outcome-focused to all-in-one solutions.

The reasons schools choose to move in the first place are varied. Many convert to academies and sometimes they join a trust where a different MIS is in use so they switch as part of the joining process. Other times, they’ll use their change of status to academy as an opportunity to look at the MIS options available to them now that they are no longer under LA control.

Maintained schools are switching MIS too. For many, the traditional model of them being able to buy into an LA-purchased and supported MIS is disappearing as councils no longer retain budget or mandate solutions. For some, they never participated in the LA arrangement, choosing to do their own thing and looking at the market on a regular basis anyway.

But what it is that schools look for in a new MIS? What’s most important to them?

A recent survey¹ of 2,146 schools across England asked them to prioritise what they felt was the most important factor in terms of price, support, functionality, integration, partnership and reputation when looking for a new supplier. The results are outlined below:

Functionality was identified as the most important factor at just over 57%, with price coming second and integration a close third, within a couple of percentage of each other.

It makes sense that functionality would come out as the most important factor amongst schools. Ultimately there are certain functions an MIS has to perform to be fit for purpose, such as census which they all do, but there are a huge amount of processes and insights provided by your MIS which schools rely on every day.

The fact that the amount of respondents who said that price was the most important factor to them is fairly similar to the number of respondents who said that integration with other products was the most important factor to them tells an interesting story.

Without a doubt, schools are looking for best value when it comes to MIS, but this doesn’t necessarily mean cheapest. Equally, there is a drive to consolidate systems for sure, but schools don’t want this to at the expense of losing something else they might be using which is incredibly valuable to them; they want to be able to use the best of what’s available to them on the market so integration across solutions is important to them.

(It’s interesting as a similar survey was conducted amongst MAT leaders and, in that survey, functionality scored a much higher percentage; they seemed to be even less sensitive to price and gave more weight to how the product worked – presumably as there are specific MIS needs in trusts. We’ll cover this in another blog).

So, given that the majority of schools cite functionality as the main thing they’re looking for in a new MIS, the next question is: how happy are they with their existing MIS and how likely are they to move?

The survey asked respondents to rate how satisfied they were with their MIS, on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 10 being extremely satisfied. The results are below, and the vast majority of suppliers got an average score of 6 or above:

It also asked how likely respondents are to move in the next 12 months, as outlined in the pie chart below:

Around 64% in total said they were either ‘unlikely’ or ‘very unlikely’ to move MIS in the next 12 months, so it seems almost two-thirds of schools are either happy with what they’ve got, or don’t see moving MIS as a priority in the next 12 months.

That said, 311 respondents, which is just over 14%, said they were either ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to move in the next 12 months – if this is a reflection across the whole market then we can expect lots of movement from one MIS to another in the next year or so.

Ultimately, if schools are citing functionality as the main thing they look for in a new MIS, how confident are MIS suppliers that their functionality is truly meeting the needs of schools? Aside from the basics, what makes one stand apart from the other?  We’ll be exploring this, amongst other things, in more detail in subsequent posts and would love to hear your views; what do you think users are you looking for in their MIS?

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England, by email. It was not sent to independent schools. The survey was completed by Headteachers, Deputy and Assistant Heads, and School Business Managers / Leaders between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked which MIS they use. The results are outlined below:

2020 was a busy year in the world of MIS!

Juniper Education Group acquired Pupil Asset and SISRA amongst others.  The Key Support Services has bolstered its position in the school MIS sector by adding Arbor Education to their portfolio alongside ScholarPack.  IRIS Software Group has acquired iSAMS Ltd which is a great addition to the solutions they already offer the education sector. And finally, Montagu announced they intend to acquire SIMS from Capita, and also invest in ParentPay with the goal of bringing SIMS into the ParentPay Group.

Following on from our initial chat in the Spring, Phil Neal and I caught up towards the end of the year to discuss the various changes that had happened across the sector, and get his views on what might happen next.

We’ve broken the interview down into parts to make it easier to digest. Enjoy!