We’ve spoken to many schools, Trusts and LA support teams about the options regarding the 3-year ESS SIMS contracts, so it’s great to hear that there’s now some clarity as to what to do next.

 

Basically, if you’ve been thinking about exploring alternative MIS systems you can now take advantage of the new 12-month break clause following the recent Competition and Markets Authority judgement.

 

The CMA has published its decision to accept commitments from ESS that enable certain schools (meaning those which had considered switching providers but concluded they did not have sufficient time to do so) to apply to an independent adjudicator for a 12-month break clause. If granted, the clause will allow them to exit their current three-year contract with ESS and choose an alternative provider, should they so wish.

 

 

– This is good news for schools that wanted to go through a procurement exercise for their MIS but felt they didn’t have enough time as they can now apply for a 12-month break clause to give them time to test the market.

 

– What’s not so great is that there’s a limited timeframe to get your application in and you’ll need to provide a supporting statement. Schools have one month to apply, from 10^th January 2023 to 10 February 2023.

 

 

You’ll be told whether you are successful by 31st March 2023, you then have 12 months to choose a new supplier, giving you time to switch by March 2024.

 

There is no downside to applying. It’s worth doing to buy some time so you can take a proper look at the MIS solutions out there. You’re not under any obligation to actually move supplier and you can always change your mind and do nothing.

 

If you’re happy with your existing SIMS contract and terms, then of course this probably isn’t for you. However, if you would have liked to test the market but couldn’t do so at the time, here’s the link to the application form and the guidance

 

We’d also recommend looking at the support options available as many local school support teams are completely MIS agnostic; they support the process, not the product. They can often help you with your market-testing exercise and are able to support your MIS implementation as part of your overall IT strategy and School Development Plan too.

According to DfE census data, the past three and a half years have seen an increased trend towards switching MIS amongst schools in England.

The headline story is that SIMS market share has dropped the most, from a huge 77% to a still healthy 60%, and three main challenger MIS have emerged, between them winning 27% of the market: Bromcom and Arbor across all phases, and Scholarpack in primary schools. There are also plenty of other challengers – each of them gaining ground in their own way (I’d recommend checking out Joshua Perry’s Bring More Data blog for details and analysis).

 

 

What’s behind this trend and is it set to continue?

 

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 has disappeared. Councils in England are rarely able to retain budget or mandate solutions, and the largest MIS supplier (ESS SIMS) has taken the decision to ask all their schools to contract with them directly instead of via an LA licence, for a three-year period¹. For many, this change in terms prompted a market-testing exercise which led to a new MIS being selected.

 

 

• Schools, academies and MATs are increasingly aware of the cost and efficiency gains they can make by switching MIS. Schools are looking to save money on multiple systems and save time on back-office processes, and MATs are looking to centralise more data and operational workflows. This is a huge driver and one that is likely to increase over the next few years.

 

All these factors are ongoing. Academy conversion continues to happen, and single academies are increasingly joining larger, more established MATs.

SIMS schools who wanted to go to tender for their MIS but felt they didn’t have time to complete a proper procurement exercise resulted in a large group of them seeking legal advice on the matter which is now being investigated by the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA).¹

There are countless case studies of schools and academies who will tell you about the huge improvements moving MIS supplier has brought about, almost always accompanied by big cost-savings.

It looks like change is set to continue. The question is: how fast?

 

 

How likely are schools to switch MIS supplier in the next 12 months?

 

In Spring 2021, The Key sent a survey to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England on the subject of MIS which produced some fascinating insights, including (amongst other things):

 

• What’s most important to schools when looking for an MIS, and how likely are they to move supplier
• How effective MIS are at saving schools time, and how well schools supported
• How intuitive are MIS solutions for new users, and do they give schools the right tools for the job in terms of collaboration and data?

 

The Key sent out a similar survey in Spring 2022 so, using these results, we’ve been able to compare how opinions on MIS have changed and gain some insight into what schools might do in the future.

 

 

The survey asked schools how likely they were to consider changing supplier in the next 12-months. The results indicate that almost 16% said they were either ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to move in the next 12 months which is around the same as last year – if this is a reflection across the whole market then we can expect the trend of switching MIS to continue in the next year or so (you can find the full results plus analysis by supplier in The Key’s blog post “What do schools feel about their MIS?”)

 

 

 

 

While the distribution of results was broadly similar to 2021, the trend compared to the previous year showed some polarisation towards either end of the scale. More respondents said they were ‘very likely’ to move than last year, but an increased number of respondents said they were ‘very unlikely’ to move too. There could be a few reasons for this:

 

• A sizeable group of schools have switched MIS recently so the appetite amongst this group for them to switch again will be very low; it usually makes sense to embed a new MIS fully and explore everything it can do before deciding to change again.

 

• A lot of schools will be in a multi-year contract with their MIS so moving MIS may not be an option they could consider in the short term. (However, some suppliers do give schools the option to switch to them mid-contract without double-paying, e.g. Bromcom and Arbor )

 

• At the other end of the scale, the increase in appetite amongst schools for moving MIS will likely be for the reasons outlined at the very beginning of this blog: when a new contract is required (be that through the school’s academisation, or an existing contract coming to an end with an LA or supplier) it prompts the need for a fair and rigorous tender process – even if that school, academy or trust is pretty happy with the incumbent supplier. There are a number of frameworks in place to help schools and MATs through this process e.g. G-cloud, Everything ICT, etc.

 

• Finally, the increase in schools saying that they are very likely to move MIS in the next 12 months could purely be down to the fact that they are not happy with their existing supplier. This could be down to the way it works (or doesn’t work) for them, the support they receive, cost, customer service, or any number of other reasons.

 

We’ll be exploring what’s important to schools, academies and trusts in future blogs – subscribe to stay up to date.

 

 

 

 

¹At the time of publishing this blog, the CMA has stated that they need further time to investigate and has not yet announced the action they intend to take.

 

Last month, Nick caught up with former Capita MD and creator of the SIMS MIS, Phil Neal, to discuss the various changes in the education sector. As the MIS market continues to evolve and Phil gives his view on:

• The ongoing tender in Northern Ireland and what might happen there in terms of MIS supplier, as well as Scotland and Wales
• The challenges of developing an MIS to meet specific, regional-based, statutory requirements: is this a distraction for MIS suppliers?
• The big changes in the England MIS market, with views on ET-AIMS, Compass Education, IRIS Ed:gen, Juniper Education, Bromcom, Scholarpack and Arbor
• The recent decision by ESS to move to three-year, direct contracts for all schools and potential ramifications
• How more MIS solutions within the UK market might actually lead to less innovation  in the long term
• How machine learning can be used within MIS to create something truly unique
• The importance of Support Units and the role they play alongside schools

 

As always it’s fascinating to get the views of someone who has worked in the MIS sector for so long and knows the various stakeholders so well.

Where do you think the MIS market is heading and who will be the long-term winners?

 

 

Interesting to learn today that the CMA has now confirmed they are investigating ESS SIMS on the issue surrounding 3-year contracts.

As schools will be aware, they were required to sign a new 3-year contract directly with ESS by the end of last month if they want to keep using SIMS. What ESS has also said is that there is a 6-month break clause, so if schools do want to move to another supplier then they are free to do so, they just need to let ESS know before the end of September 2022 to leave the contract.

The big question is: is this long enough to conduct the necessary market testing exercise, and go through a satisfactory procurement process, in order to decide if staying with SIMS for the next 3-years is the right thing for your school?

Many schools have told the CMA that it isn’t long enough which has prompted the formal investigation to allow them to consider this matter properly.

Realistically, when a school has used a solution for several years, it does take time to properly assess the alternatives out there. There’s so much more to it than simply ‘getting quotes’ from providers. It involves taking a fresh look at how everyone utilises their MIS:

– What we would like an MIS system to achieve?
– What are our top priorities as a school?
– Is there a way of improving how we do things?
– How have solutions innovated and improved since we last looked at the market?

It was around last Autumn when schools were made aware of the new contract arrangements. The question around the procurement process is a tricky one. Physically making the purchase can be done quickly (there are frameworks, etc. out there) but undertaking a proper market testing exercise involving all the stakeholders in school is a LOT harder.

 

Any procurement process needs to be rigorous, and any decision justifiable as it can be challenged. And, should the school choose to switch MIS, adequate time needs to be available for a successful implementation.

 

It doesn’t help that, if a school has used one system for a long time (which tends to be the case for LA schools) they’re really starting from scratch. A lot of innovation has happened in the last 10 years alone; there’s no way of understanding what’s out there until you’ve had the chance to really dig into the possibilities. Creating requirements for an MIS can be equally challenging; just because something’s “always been done that way” doesn’t mean they want to continue with that process.

 

And then there is the implementation to consider. This is an area MIS suppliers have invested in like crazy so it’s possible to get a school up and running on their system really quickly. But there does need to be a plan for how the changeover will be managed. These are systems that are not just used by one or two people in school, they are used by operational staff, teachers, SLT and parents.

 

It’s also very difficult for schools to be able to look at things on a truly like-for-like basis as so much has changed. For example, it’s pretty usual for a SIMS school to have bought into the core MIS (inc. support from their LA team) and then, over the years, purchase additional modules to meet different needs (e.g. to manage dinner money, or offer an online payment solution, or a texting solution, or an app for parents/students, etc.). The more modern MIS solutions don’t usually require all these extra modules or products to be purchased at all, they tend to be part of the core MIS as standard and the whole thing is cloud-based so it’s a seamless, complete solution.  But this means it can leave schools with an even more complex procurement ahead when they realise there are far more factors at play  – and better potential savings to be made.

 

(What’s also interesting is that, as part of its investigation, the CMA has said they will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how SIMS is being sold alongside FMS – check out our separate post on this thorny issue.)

 

What do you think? How long should a school allocate to procuring their school management system?

If you’ve gone through a procurement process, what’s your advice?

What options are open to schools when it comes to financial management solutions?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating whether ESS SIMS is abusing a dominant position to push schools into accepting a new 3-year contract.  What’s interesting here is that, as part of its investigation, the CMA has said they will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how SIMS is being sold alongside FMS.

 

The press release from the CMA says:

“As part of its investigation, the CMA will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how ESS’s management information system product is being sold alongside its financial management software. This could encourage customers to buy both products and deter customers moving away from ESS.

The CMA is concerned that, by adopting such a pricing strategy, market players that only offer one of these services may be unable to compete, potentially leading to an uncompetitive market in future.”

How ARE schools handling what they do in terms of a finance package when they switch to a new MIS?

Product functionality and data extraction aside, one of the biggest challenges schools always used to face around FMS was how costly it was to buy it directly from ESS (then Capita) if you want to buy it as a standalone product. e.g. not bundled with the MIS via an LA-wide deal.

For many, the new total annual cost of an MIS + finance solution would simply be driven too high to justify the change so they stayed with their existing systems.

But as schools choose to move to new MIS solutions, what are they choosing as their finance system?