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.

Next in our series of edtech thought leader Q&As is this conversation with Rowena Hackwood, Chief Executive Officer at Astrea Academy Trust, a family of 29 schools across South Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire with a proven track record of school improvement.

It was great to be able to get the perspective of a MAT leader as it’s something both edtech and MIS suppliers need to have at the heart of their product strategy. In this interview we talk about:

• What drives Rowena and her work in education
• Her approach to taking on a MAT, and what’s involved in the first 6 months as a new MAT CEO
• The most important factors when looking at edtech solutions across her MAT, and the biggest issues
• Innovation across the edtech sector as a whole, and what she’d like to see tackled by suppliers

We’ve split the interview into four parts to make it easier to digest. Enjoy!

Last Tuesday I was fortunate enough to be invited to the SNUG MIS day (thank you to John and Dave from OSMIS for inviting me) which gave me the ability to directly compare MIS cloud-based solutions for the UK Edtech market. I have to say a lot of the solutions have moved on and are now direct competitors to SIMS, and it certainly appeared to be the feeling within the room of support team colleagues.  

I have always highlighted to Capita the need to bring out their SIMS8 Primary solution ASAP or the competitor solutions would catch-up and overtake what SIMS is offering schools/MATs (both during my time with SIMS and now as an independent consultant). This has now become a reality!!  

More and more customers are starting to realise this and have either decided to move or are challenging the status quo. You can see with Josh Perry’s analysis that SIMS are losing customers, especially in the Primary market.  This trend is only going to increase over the next 2-3 years in my opinion. 

The different MIS solutions major on different things to support schools, but what all of them are offering is a fully integrated solution where the e-payment (Scholarpack is an exception here) and communication solutions are just part and parcel of the MIS, they are not bolt-ons or third party solutions. In my view, here’s how they differ: 

Arbor

• Highlight how much they want to support the education of students by taking away the administrative burden of staff (incl. teachers).  
• A very clean UI/UX and had a strong MAT offering around analytics 
• The data analytics was not only MIS information, they were also drawing on national data to enable national comparisons.  
• The message coming from the company was very much “we want to work with you” and all about partnership. Great message and one that resonated with the audience.

Bromcom

• Major on their integrated BI analytics, it looks really strong.  
• Their message was a little more corporate.  
• Very simple looking solution (which is a positive!) and had adapted their solution to provide a strong UX and UI for Primary and another UI for Secondary. That said, some of the screens were a little busy. 
• They are definitely listening to their customers, which I am not sure the industry had felt up to this point.  

Pupil Asset

• Major on their tracking solution which is very well received in lots of schools across the country, and many schools go on to switch to the full MIS as a result of their good customer experience 
• Strong reporting functionality with their ‘School On A Page’ and ‘MAT On A Page’ reports 
• They also have something innovative (which, to be honest, I feel they should focus on more) in their ‘Live School’. This gives a visual view of the school e.g. if there is a behaviour issue in the school, in a visual model of the school you can see where the incident occurred. 

Scholarpack

• This is a solution focused purely at the primary school market and this is their strong brand, providing a solution that fits the primary schools. 
• It may not be as deep in functionality as some of the other solutions out in the market, but that light MIS is what primary schools want in my experience (most primary schools don’t use half of what is included in the deeper MIS) 
• Their MAT offering was light.  However, they are bringing out more MAT functionality soon. 
• I think they have hit the Primary segment spot on. They will need to look over their shoulders a little as Bromcom and Arbor also have a Primary solution and as MATs get larger with multi phased schools.  My experience is that they look for a single offering for all phases (most large MATs have either gone to Arbor or Bromcom) so this may become an issue for them in the longer term. 

Now for my request from the different MIS providers (and this includes SIMS): a lot of what I saw was very similar functionality to SIMS7 but it was either implemented better or the UI/UX was a lot stronger.  However, all the presentations continued to refer to SIMS as the standard.  I feel everyone should look to be further on than this. They are already comparative to SIMS – I think schools and academies need them all to think about what the true next generation of MIS is! 

I’d like to see more on workflows, reducing the need for manual intervention. I’d also like to see more on Data Analysis and the use of AI/machine learning to provide true insights as to what is occurring in the school/MAT.    

It’s one thing answering the questions where MATs and schools know they need an answer. But how do you answer the questions they don’t yet know they need to ask??