Across the education sector, the challenge of doing more with less is all too familiar. Every school in the UK is feeling the pinch so, for school leaders tasked with financial responsibility, it’s crucial to find innovative ways to save money without compromising educational quality.

 

Fortunately, while spending on technology is necessary each year in schools, there are strategies that can help. Here are four ideas for schools to trim their technology budgets and make every pound count.

 

 

1. Refurbished Technology

 

When it comes to technology, staying current can be costly. However, schools can significantly cut costs without sacrificing quality by embracing and refurbished technology. It’s often at a fraction of the price of brand-new versions and, ensuring they have long warranties, these devices provide a cost-effective solution that stands the test of time. It’s a smart way to keep your technology up to date without breaking the bank.

 

 

2. Strategic Procurement: Partner for Savings

 

Schools can unlock significant savings by forming partnerships with trusted technology providers. For example, the Scomis school support team has created their own ScoStore which uses a network of partners who are committed to delivering the best value options, ensuring that schools receive the highest quality products at the best prices. Collaborating with these partners can lead to bulk purchase discounts and exclusive offers, driving down technology acquisition costs.

 

 

3. Software Licensing Optimisation: Pay for what you use

 

Schools often find themselves overpaying for software licenses they don’t fully utilise. Conduct a thorough audit of your software licenses to identify unused or redundant subscriptions. Take a look at all the solutions you do use and evaluate if there is a need for separate licences, or could they be rationalised and a single solution be used for everything instead? By optimising your software usage, you can reduce licensing costs, allowing you to allocate resources more efficiently.

 

 

4. Energy efficiency = lower operational costs

 

Embracing energy-efficient technology not only reduces your school’s environmental footprint but also trims operational expenses. Consider switching to energy-efficient LED lighting, upgrading to ENERGY STAR-rated appliances, and implementing automated heating and cooling systems. These changes can result in substantial savings on your energy bills over time.

 

 

In the face of tightening budgets, school leaders must be resourceful in managing technology spending. From refurbished technology and strategic procurement to software optimisation and energy efficiency, these strategies empower schools to reduce costs while focusing on delivering for learners. By adopting approaches such as these, you can ensure that every pound spent is going towards a brighter, more cost-efficient future for your school.

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.

 

There was a time when LA teams provided pretty much all IT solutions and services to their schools and the schools bought into them without question. They tended to be the only local solution available and, historically, this is what had always been done.

But, as the way authorities and schools were funded was gradually changed (and mostly reduced), the dynamic between schools and support teams changed. Sadly some LAs decided they no longer wanted to fund support teams at all and I know there were cases where teams were disbanded altogether or acquired by a third party. Independent teams started to form out of the old authority-schools-only teams and they were happy to work with schools outside of the traditional LA boundaries.  This was great news for schools for two reasons:

1. For many schools, the relationship they had with individuals at local support teams would have been a key part in their school development plan and dynamic. They wanted to be able to keep working with the same colleagues that they have for 20+ years and this meant they were still able to do so.
2. For other schools, they wanted a support choice and they finally had it! Geographical boundaries stopped being an issue. E.g. if you were a school in the South East who wanted to use a service in the North West as they had a good reputation it was now possible.

 

By and large, the evolving support team dynamic worked.

What it did do, however, is leave a big question mark over the MIS services they provide and the options open to schools. A big chunk of LA teams were SIMS support teams. This meant that, each year, they committed to Capita to provide SIMS support for all their maintained schools and, in return, their maintained schools were able to access the authority-owned SIMS licence for a certain amount of money (each support team then traded their own SIMS licence and support SLA with their own schools, Capita did not get involved in the support of these maintained schools).

When academisation started to happen it meant schools were no longer maintained, LA-led schools but individual entities in their own right. They could no longer access the LA-owned SIMS licence so had to purchase an MIS themselves. It caught many off-guard to begin with, having done the same thing the same way for so long, but it wasn’t long before MATs and academies started to use the opportunity to look at ALL the MIS available out there and modernise their systems. It’s easy enough to procure a new SaaS MIS, and many saw an opportunity for change to an easy-to-use, cloud-based solution.

 

And change is exactly what they have done. According to their websites, Bromcom is in over 50 MATs and Arbor work with 73 MATs and groups. On the primary front, Scholarpack have 27 MATs listed on their site and Pupil Asset work with 20% of the largest MATs in England.

 

So where does this leave the SIMS support teams?  MATs and academies often still want to buy into local support (they still want to work with the colleagues they’ve built such great relationships with) but they want a choice of MIS.

 

At the end of the day, the progressive support teams understand that it doesn’t really matter which MIS a school or academy uses and they offer multi-MIS support.

As they will tell you, they “support the process not the product!”.  Their priority has always been helping their schools achieve their goals, and it’s something they plan to continue to do in the future – irrespective of the systems they use.

 

 

 

P.S. All the cloud-based MIS suppliers above welcome local teams getting involved with the support for their solutions and have created support partnership programmes. They’re all exhibiting at Bett London in Jan 2020 next month if you’d like to chat with them, or we can put you in touch with them if you’d prefer – just drop us a line.

Sarah & Nick