Multi-Academy Trusts grow quickly. Schools join at different times, with different histories, different contexts — and almost always different MIS platforms.
SIMS… Arbor… Bromcom… ScholarPack… Cloud School…
Each one brings its own data structures, quirks, export requirements, and “unique” ways of calculating the basics.
For central teams, this creates a familiar problem:
You can’t run a trust on inconsistent definitions and incompatible exports.
And yet that’s exactly where most MATs find themselves.
This article breaks down:
- why mixed MIS systems create so much operational friction
- the three layers of standardisation every MAT needs
- how to build a consistent data architecture that works regardless of MIS
- what MATs should expect from analytics partners (and what’s a red flag)
1. Why Mixed MIS Systems Cause So Much Burden
1.1 Different systems = different logic
Even for something as supposedly simple as “attendance”, the definitions diverge:
- one MIS counts dual-registered pupils, another doesn’t
- one uses sessions, another minutes
- one displays PA differently
- exclusions may appear as marks, codes, or events depending on MIS
So when central teams ask for “PA by year group”, they’re not just asking schools to send the data —
they’re unknowingly asking them to translate it.
1.2 Data arrives in different formats
CSV… XLSX… weird custom exports…
Columns change order. Field names change. Numeric fields sometimes export as text.
Each school sends something that works for them, but not for the trust.
1.3 Schools feel the pressure
Schools don’t have the time to:
- manipulate data into MAT-friendly templates
- ensure consistency with other academies
- resolve errors or format conflicts
- repeatedly answer “can you just resend this?” requests
Every revision takes hours away from teaching, pastoral leadership, and improvement work.
2. The Three Layers of Data Standardisation Every Trust Needs
To run a coherent trust, you need three layers working together.
Layer 1 — Standardised Extraction
Regardless of the MIS, the trust needs reliable, automated access to the same underlying fields.
This requires:
- direct MIS integrations or APIs
- consistent extraction logic
- agreed definitions (e.g., on-roll rules, dual registration, session mapping)
Without this, nothing else works.
Layer 2 — Standardised Transformation & Calculation
Once extracted, the data must pass through a trust-wide methodology:
- unified attendance calculations
- shared exclusion logic
- trust-standard cohort definitions
- identical PA thresholds
- common rules for leavers/starters
- consistent date logic and time periods
This is where true comparability is created.
Different MIS systems become irrelevant once everything is calculated through the same logic.
Layer 3 — Standardised Presentation & Visual Language
This is where MATs often underestimate the value of good design.
Trusts need:
- dashboards that look and behave the same across all schools
- the same filters, same colours, same layout, same signifiers
- shared KPI structures
- identical drill-down pathways
- common benchmark markers
When every academy sees data in the same way, alignment becomes automatic — not something enforced.
3. How Smarter Analytics Supports MATs With Mixed MIS Systems
(Informative-first, light positioning.)
3.1 One methodology, regardless of MIS
Whether a school uses SIMS, Arbor, Bromcom, or a combination:
- the extraction process is automated
- the transformation logic is identical
- the visual presentation is shared
Every school produces data that means the same thing.
3.2 No more spreadsheet chasing
Central teams stop requesting:
- attendance spreadsheets
- exclusion summaries
- assessment exports
- behaviour downloads
Schools stop spending hours each week compiling them.
3.3 Trust leaders gain instant comparability
With unified methodology:
- PA comparisons make sense
- Subject or cohort insights are comparable
- Outcomes can be interpreted alongside attendance, behaviour, and mobility
- Variation is real, not a data-collection artefact
3.4 Schools gain time back
Standardisation isn’t just for MAT leaders — it reduces workload in schools.
- Less exporting
- Less data manipulation
- Less worrying about “matching the MAT format”
4. What MATs Should Expect From Any Analytics Partner
- Support all major MIS platforms — via automated extraction, not uploads.
- Apply consistent logic to every school — the trust sets the methodology.
- Ensure comparability — exact, not approximate.
- Provide dashboards built for MAT leadership
- Offer transparent documentation
- Reduce workload for schools — not increase it.
5. The Future: Beyond MIS Standardisation
Even when MIS platforms converge, MATs will still need to standardise:
- quality assurance
- SEND needs
- safeguarding indicators
- workforce and finance datasets
- internal behaviour systems
- third-party assessment tools
The goal is a trust-wide ecosystem that supports the right decisions at the right time.
Mixed MIS systems were just step one.
Closing Thought
Standardising data across mixed MIS systems isn’t just an IT challenge — it’s the foundation of trust-wide clarity, fairness, and confident leadership.
When MATs unify their data ecosystem, they don’t just gain consistency — they gain the ability to understand what’s working, where, and why.