Student records and admissions

Classes and staff

Attendance

Assessment and results

Fees

Communication

Parent portal

Reporting and administration

School Operations & Parent Portal Platform

A parent transferring from a personal account with no reference cannot be identified automatically. The system narrows the work — matching by amount, by sender name against guardian names, by exact reference — and presents the bursar a short queue instead of a full statement. The honest claim is that it turns a fortnight into an afternoon, not that it eliminates the task.

The transfer-matching problem is not fully solvable and should not be sold as if it were.

Teachers who currently hand in a paper mark sheet are being asked to type. The mitigation is a spreadsheet import as a permanent supported path, not a temporary concession, plus mark entry designed for a phone. A school that forces the issue gets marks entered by one overworked administrator at term end, which reintroduces every error the system was meant to remove.

Teacher adoption of mark entry is the risk.

Most parents will keep calling the office for the first year. The portal earns its place through automated messages pushing information outward, not by waiting for parents to log in.

Parent portal adoption is slow.

Fee structure

Concessions

Invoicing

Family billing

Payment recording

Statement import

Holding queue

Part payment and plans

Receipts

Debtors

Fees and Payment Reconciliation System

A parent transferring from a personal account with no reference is not identifiable by any algorithm. What the system does is narrow the work — exact-reference matches clear themselves, amount and name matching produce ranked suggestions, and the bursar is left with a short queue instead of a full statement. The honest claim is that it turns a fortnight into an afternoon. It does not eliminate the task, and a school expecting elimination will be disappointed by a system that is working correctly.

Transfer matching cannot be fully automated, and selling it as though it can is how this project fails.

Class structure

Register

Absence detail

Alerting

Summaries

Messaging

Delivery tracking

Message log

Attendance and Parent Communication

A school of 400 students sending two messages a term to every family is not expensive; a school sending absence alerts daily during a flu week is. The system must show projected and actual messaging spend, and the school must decide its own alert thresholds with that cost visible. A vendor who does not raise this before go-live is setting up an argument in month two.

Messaging costs money per message, and schools routinely underestimate it.

Ingestion

Metric layer

Subject view

Cohort view

Student view

Comparison

Reporting

Academic Performance Intelligence Hub

Subject performance is inseparable from who taught the subject. A head who uses it as a management weapon will find marks quietly inflated within two terms, which destroys the dataset and the tool. The recommendation is that teacher-attributed views exist but are restricted to the head, framed for development rather than ranking, and that this is a decision the school makes explicitly during Phase 2 rather than discovering later.

Teacher-level performance data is organisationally explosive, and the system will produce it whether or not it is a named feature.

Phase 1 assesses how far back the data is actually comparable, and it is frequently less far than the school assumes.

Historical mark data is usually inconsistent — grading schemes change, subjects are renamed, weightings shift.