Every school leader will know the headache of choosing the “right” management information system (MIS) for their school. The functional differences between platforms aren’t obvious, the cost of getting it wrong is high, and most schools go through the exercise so rarely that they don’t build the knowledge for a repeat purchase. The DfE wants schools to benefit from the data a MIS gathers. It has listened when leaders have said choosing a solution is difficult and, in response, has set out a proposed MIS procurement framework to assist. So far, so helpful. However, it’s the details (or lack of thinking them through) that will let its proposed system down. Here’s how I see it. Adding complexity If the MIS procurement framework admits suppliers that meet a broad set of criteria, schools will be presented with roughly the same providers they see today, just with an additional procurement process in front of them. This doesn’t simplify anything. If the framework filters suppliers, then someone is deciding which platforms schools may consider. But on what evidence will they be judged? And by whom? What recourse will there be for a supplier excluded or for a school whose preferred system isn’t on the list? The criteria are not yet defined and are expected to be reviewed annually. This means a supplier could meet the standard one year and not the next, or a school could find that the system it implemented at considerable cost is no longer available to renew. None of this gives schools more confidence than they have now. In a market like this, new products raise the bar. If the effect of the framework is that a supplier must satisfy an annually shifting standard before a school can even consider it, the department will have made entry harder at precisely the point it says it wants better choice. Managing supplier performance Judging whether a supplier is performing well isn’t a simple matter of counting complaints. If a small number of complaints can affect a supplier’s standing on the framework, the DfE will be making commercially serious decisions on a thin evidence base. There’s no published threshold, proportionality test, route of appeal or consultation duty, because these actually belong in a commercial instrument rather than a statutory one. A deadline, but no framework Paragraph 2.30 of the academy trust handbook 2026 (which takes effect on 1 October) requires MATs to align all MIS contracts with the MIS framework by September 2027. But there’s just one problem: the framework doesn’t exist yet. Trusts are therefore being asked to plan around an instrument whose lots, award criteria, call-off mechanism and supplier list are all unpublished – leaving everyone floundering in the dark. Undefined scope boundary So far, I haven’t seen anything published that establishes where the proposed framework stops. That not-so-small detail could determine how much of the education technology sector ends up inside a centrally managed purchasing route. An MIS doesn’t sit alone – it has finance, HR and payroll, safeguarding, assessment, parental engagement, payments, catering and a long list of other products connecting to it. Many have nothing to do with MIS. If the boundary is drawn to include the products that plug into an MIS or the modules an MIS supplier offers alongside it, the framework potentially reaches far beyond MIS functionalities – and, what’s more, it does so without those markets being consulted. Interoperability When data moves cleanly and predictably between systems, switching costs fall, comparison becomes easier, competition improves and schools’ choices get simpler without a framework doing that work at all. I’d suggest that this is the fix for the problem the department has identified – it’s the part of the programme I’d certainly put first. Instead, in the absence of any published specification, suppliers are being asked to commit to framework terms before knowing what “interoperable” and “API-enabled” officially mean. They will then have little choice but to accept whatever specification follows. Cost, price and value for money Frameworks like this aren’t cheap to run. They require people with commercial and technical understanding of a specific market to define criteria, assess suppliers, manage performance, handle disputes and carry out annual reviews. That capability either has to be built inside the department or bought in. Either way, the cost of doing it properly is substantial. If administered well (as we would expect), it may end up costing more than it saves. Simplification should be simple It seems to me that the reasoning behind this MIS framework applies equally to every other category schools buy in. This begs the question: are we going to see a DfE-designed procurement process assembled one framework at a time? Publishing best-practice buying guidance that specifies what core MIS functionality should include is a good idea, and one that does not add complexity, substantial cost or uncertainty. It could be the simple answer to making buying an MIS easier right now, without the need to set up a new, far-reaching procurement system that has the potential to become a costly white elephant that benefits nobody.