From disconnected data to intelligent action.
EduGap builds bespoke data, analytics and AI platforms for Multi-Academy Trusts—connecting information from existing systems to help leaders understand performance, identify emerging concerns, coordinate action and measure improvement.
Intelligent systems, built around your trust.
Your trust is not standard. Your management system shouldn’t be either.
Designed to complement Arbor, Bromcom, PowerSchool, SIMS and other established education platforms.
Northstar Learning Trust
Trust operational overview
Fictional demonstration data
Schools
10
Overdue actions
11
High-priority risks
3
Assurance score
67%
| School | Status | Overdue | Risks | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northstar Central Academy | On track | 0 | 2 | 92% |
| Brookfield Primary School | Improving | 2 | 4 | 68% |
| Oaklands Community School | Improving | 1 | 3 | 71% |
| Riverbank Academy | Needs attention | 6 | 6 | 48% |
| Meadow View Primary | Improving | 0 | 2 | 74% |
| Kingsley Secondary School | On track | 0 | 2 | 88% |
| Greenhill Special School | Improving | 0 | 3 | 70% |
| Hawthorne Academy | Needs attention | 4 | 5 | 55% |
| Stonemere Primary School | Improving | 1 | 3 | 66% |
| Westbridge Learning Centreonboarding | Improving | 0 | 4 | 41% |
In plain English
What does EduGap actually do?
Imagine you are responsible for a trust with 20 schools. Important information may be held in your MIS, safeguarding, finance, HR, assessment, wellbeing, estates and other systems. Each system may work well on its own, but obtaining one clear picture across the trust can require spreadsheets, repeated data exports and hours of manual analysis.
EduGap creates an intelligent layer across the appropriate information. It helps authorised leaders see what is happening, understand why it may be happening, identify where attention is required and coordinate the agreed response.
- Step 1
Existing systems
The MIS, finance, HR, assessment, SEND, wellbeing and estates systems your schools already use.
- Step 2
Connected data foundation
Appropriate information is brought together through approved connections, controlled imports or maintained records.
- Step 3
Trust-wide analysis
Consistent definitions allow schools, cohorts and periods to be compared on the same basis.
- Step 4
AI-assisted explanation
A draft explanation of what appears to have changed, with sources, reporting period and limitations shown.
- Step 5
Human decision
A responsible leader reviews the finding and decides whether action is appropriate.
- Step 6
Agreed action
The approved action receives an owner, a deadline, notes and supporting evidence.
- Step 7
Measured outcome
Later information is compared with the original position so the trust can see whether the response made a difference.
What does “Data lake” mean?
A controlled central environment that brings together information from different systems for analysis.
What does “Predictive analytics” mean?
Using previous and current patterns to estimate where a problem may be more likely to emerge.
What does “Agentic AI” mean?
Software that can carry out a sequence of preparation steps and then return to a person for a decision.
Where information lives today
Your information is already there. It is just in different places.
These are examples of the information sources a trust may hold. Each source would be introduced only where lawful, appropriate and agreed.
Arbor
ProposedMIS
Bromcom
ProposedMIS
iSAMS
ProposedMIS
SIMS
Subject to supplier approvalMIS
CPOMS
Not currently availableSafeguarding record system
HR and payroll
Controlled importPeople
Finance
Controlled importFinance
Assessment platforms
ProposedEducation
SEND systems
ProposedEducation
Wellbeing systems
ProposedPeople
Estates information
Manual data sourceOperations
DfE and public data
Controlled importExternal
Spreadsheets
Controlled importLocal records
Local operational records
Manual data sourceLocal records
Product names are used only as examples of systems a trust may use. This does not imply an existing integration, endorsement or affiliation.
Reporting versus decision support
See the difference between reporting and decision support.
Fictional illustrative example—not a real school conclusion.
- School A attendance: 94.1%
- School B attendance: 91.8%
- School C attendance: 95.2%
- Leader must identify the important change.
- Leader must open other reports.
- Leader must find the underlying group.
- Leader must decide what to investigate.
- Actions may then be managed through email or spreadsheets.
- School B’s attendance has deteriorated.
- The largest change is within a particular fictional year group.
- The change is concentrated among a fictional pupil cohort.
- The pattern has continued for four weeks.
- Related factors may warrant investigation.
- The system identifies the responsible leader.
- A review action can be proposed.
- Progress and subsequent outcomes can be tracked.
A dashboard tells you what the numbers are. EduGap is designed to help authorised leaders understand what has changed, where to look next and how to coordinate an appropriate response.
Patterns shown side by side do not establish cause. Any apparent association requires professional review and further investigation.
Questions leaders ask
Questions EduGap can help a trust explore
Every answer depends on available data, agreed definitions and professional judgement.
| Question | EduGap could help |
|---|---|
| Which schools have a developing attendance problem? | Highlight changing patterns by school, year group and authorised cohort so leaders can decide where investigation is required. |
| Which pupils may be approaching persistent absence? | Use agreed indicators to identify pupils whose attendance patterns may warrant professional review. |
| Are disadvantaged pupils falling behind? | Compare approved cohorts and show where gaps appear to be widening or improving. |
| How are our schools performing against each other? | Provide consistent trust-wide comparisons while preserving appropriate school context. |
| How do we compare nationally? | Introduce appropriate public and DfE comparison information with clear sources and reporting periods. |
| What is happening with SEND? | Bring together authorised SEND, attendance, provision, intervention and outcome information. |
| Where should management concentrate its attention? | Surface meaningful changes, exceptions and missing information for human review. |
| Did the agreed intervention work? | Connect the original finding, agreed action, delivery evidence and subsequent outcome. |
| Which financial or workforce issues are affecting education? | Connect approved finance, staffing and educational information to support wider management analysis. |
What we provide
Three parts, working together
Trusts can begin with any part. Most begin with the foundation and one priority area.
Part 1 — Connected data foundation
Bring appropriate trust information together.
- Map existing systems
- Identify relevant information
- Establish ownership
- Create agreed data definitions
- Introduce appropriate data connections
- Monitor data quality
- Record provenance
- Create a secure foundation for reporting and AI
Part 2 — Trust intelligence platform
Turn information into management intelligence.
- Trust-wide dashboards and school comparisons
- Trend identification and exception reporting
- Cohort analysis
- Natural-language questions
- AI-assisted explanations
- Executive briefings and board reporting
- Predictive indicators and strategic KPIs
- Custom reports and role-specific views
Part 3 — Continuous improvement partnership
Build capability around your trust.
- Readiness review and systems and data audit
- Management-question workshops
- Bespoke solution design
- Custom dashboard development
- AI use-case design and workflow development
- Training
- Ongoing improvement, new data sources and new reports
- Benefits measurement
The closed loop
From insight to intervention—and back to evidence.
EduGap does not stop at showing a problem. It can help the trust coordinate its response and understand whether the response made a difference.
- 01
Detect
A meaningful pattern, change, risk or exception is identified.
- 02
Understand
Relevant authorised information and context are assembled.
- 03
Review
A responsible professional reviews the finding.
- 04
Decide
A person determines whether action is appropriate.
- 05
Assign
The agreed action receives an owner and deadline.
- 06
Deliver
Progress, notes and supporting evidence are recorded.
- 07
Measure
Later information is compared with the original position.
- 08
Learn
The trust records what worked and applies that knowledge appropriately.
EduGap does not make interventions or decisions automatically. Each step requires an authorised person.
Bespoke, not from nothing
A prioritised platform around the individual trust
Some trusts begin with attendance and school improvement. Others begin with finance, workforce, SEND, governance or operational efficiency. EduGap creates a prioritised platform around the individual trust rather than imposing every possible module at once.
Educational Improvement Trust
- Attendance
- Attainment
- SEND
- Interventions
- School improvement
Operational Efficiency Trust
- Finance
- Procurement
- Workforce
- Contracts
- Estates
Growing Trust
- Due diligence
- School onboarding
- Systems alignment
- Governance
- Executive reporting
All three share the same secure core platform
Security, permissions, workflow, evidence, audit history and data provenance are common to every implementation.
How bespoke works
Every EduGap system is built on a common, secure foundation and then configured and extended around the individual trust.
You get the reliability of a maintained platform with the parts that matter to your trust designed specifically for you.
A proven core platform
Security, permissions, workflow, evidence and audit.
Configurable modules
Turned on and shaped around your structure and language.
Reusable integrations
Approved APIs, controlled imports and maintained records.
Trust-specific work
Your dashboards, workflows, AI agents and reports.
We do not ask your trust to change how it works to fit another off-the-shelf platform. We learn how your central team and schools operate, identify the gaps between existing systems and build a tailored management and operational intelligence system around your priorities.
The operational problem
Your schools have MIS, finance, HR, IT and compliance systems. What coordinates the work between them?
Trusts grow by bringing schools together, and each one arrives with its own habits, systems and records. The operational layer between them is often improvised.
Commonly inherited
- Different working practices in each school
- Disconnected spreadsheets
- Email-based approvals
- Repeated requests for the same information
- Documents stored in different places
- Inconsistent policy reviews
- Limited visibility of overdue work
- Duplicated suppliers and software
- Difficulty preparing board-level reports
- Important knowledge held by individual members of staff
The gap is coordination, not records.
Core systems are good at holding information. Far less software is designed for the work around them: who owns what, what is due, what has been evidenced, what has slipped, and what a board needs to see.
See how the platform is structuredVendor-neutral coordination
Your schools may use different systems. Your trust still needs one way to coordinate the work.
These four fictional schools keep different local technology while participating in the same Northstar workflows for responsibilities, reviews, risks, actions, evidence and leadership reporting.
- Fictional school
Northstar Central Academy
- MIS
- Arbor
- Finance
- Access Financials
- Productivity
- Microsoft 365
- Fictional school
Oaklands Community School
- MIS
- Bromcom
- Finance
- Bromcom Finance
- Productivity
- Microsoft 365
- Fictional school
Hawthorne Academy
- MIS
- SIMS
- Finance
- Local authority service
- Productivity
- Microsoft 365
- Fictional school
Westbridge Learning Centre
- MIS
- Legacy MIS
- Finance
- Spreadsheet-led process
- Productivity
- Microsoft 365
Fictional demonstration data—no supplier endorsement is implied. Named systems are examples, not live integrations.
More than another dashboard
Move from visibility to controlled action
A dashboard shows what has happened. EduGap helps responsible people decide what happens next, assigns the work, collects the evidence, manages approvals and records completion.
- 01
Identify
- 02
Understand
- 03
Assign
- 04
Act
- 05
Evidence
- 06
Approve
- 07
Report
- 08
Improve
MIS and operational coordination
Different purposes, designed to work alongside each other
EduGap does not compete with your MIS. It coordinates the operational work that sits around—and often between—the systems used throughout your trust.
MIS platforms generally manage
- Pupil records
- Attendance
- Behaviour
- Assessment
- Timetables
- Parent communication
- Statutory returns
- School-level pupil reporting
EduGap coordinates
- Trust-wide responsibilities
- Operational actions
- Risks and mitigations
- Policies and acknowledgements
- Evidence and assurance
- Digital standards
- Suppliers and contracts
- Cross-school instructions
- New school onboarding
- Cross-system workflows
- Leadership and board reporting
What the platform does
Six things the Hub is built to do
One operational view across every school
Bring responsibilities, deadlines, risks and evidence from all schools into a single, comparable picture.
Requirements become owned actions
Turn reviews, standards and findings into actions with a named owner, a due date and a visible status.
Evidence stays connected to the work
Attach supporting documents to the requirement they satisfy, so assurance does not depend on a folder search.
Repeatable processes, local flexibility
Standardise the steps that should be consistent, while allowing schools to work in the way that suits them.
Controlled AI reduces administration
AI drafts, summarises and prepares. Accountable people review, amend or reject before anything is applied.
Clear leadership and board reporting
Assemble reports from live operational records rather than rebuilding them each term in a spreadsheet.
How it fits
A coordination layer, not a replacement
Your schools keep the systems they rely on. The Hub coordinates the work, the ownership and the evidence around them.
- MIS
- Finance
- HR and payroll
- Microsoft 365
EduGap
Coordination, workflow and oversight layer
- Google Workspace
- IT support
- Websites
- Compliance tools
Potential and proposed integration points, subject to technical availability and supplier approval. No integration is currently live.
Who it is for
Built around the people who carry operational responsibility
Chief executive officers
Trust-wide position, escalations and board assurance in one place.
Chief operating officers
Operational exceptions, overdue work and consistency across schools.
Chief finance officers
Contract records, notice deadlines and consolidation opportunities.
Trust IT directors
Technology, cybersecurity and digital standards coordination.
School business professionals
One clear list of assigned work instead of scattered requests.
Headteachers
Visibility of their own school without extra central reporting.
Governance professionals
Policy ownership, acknowledgements and evidence-led reporting.
Education service providers
Deliver, monitor and evidence services across many school customers.
Intended outcomes
What we are designing the platform to achieve
These are intended benefits of the design, not measured results. The platform has not yet been deployed in a live trust.
- Reduce repeated administrative requests
- Improve visibility across schools
- Create clearer accountability
- Surface risks sooner
- Reduce spreadsheet dependency
- Prepare reports more efficiently
- Improve consistency
- Support evidence-based decisions
- Identify contract consolidation opportunities
- Protect organisational knowledge
Agentic operations
From passive records to intelligent operational support.
Traditional software waits for someone to enter information and run a report. An agentic operational system can recognise an approaching deadline, gather the relevant information, suggest the next actions, prepare a draft and ask the responsible person for approval.
Example: a policy review
- 1A policy review date approaches.
- 2The system identifies the current owner.
- 3Relevant guidance and the previous version are assembled.
- 4AI prepares a review summary and suggested changes.
- 5The policy owner reviews the draft.
- 6Approval is recorded.
- 7The updated policy is distributed.
- 8Acknowledgements and overdue responses are tracked.
- 9Evidence is retained for future reporting.
Accountable people remain in control.
AI assists with administration, analysis and preparation. It does not approve policies, make safeguarding or employment decisions, commit expenditure, or send consequential communications.
Read the AI controls in fullTwo ways to use the platform
One platform, two propositions
For Multi-Academy Trusts
One operational environment across the trust
Central teams gain consistent information and oversight; schools gain a clear list of responsibilities instead of repeated requests.
For Education Partners
A white-label platform for service providers
Suppliers, consultants and service providers manage assessments, action plans, evidence and reporting across every school customer, under their own brand.
Interactive demonstration
Walk through a fictional ten-school trust
The demonstration contains Northstar Learning Trust — an invented trust with ten invented schools, varied operational states, assessments you can answer, actions you can update and reports you can preview.
Fictional demonstration data
No account is required. Nothing you change in the demonstration affects anything real, and you can reset the data at any time.
Northstar Learning Trust
Trust operational overview
Fictional demonstration data
Schools
10
Overdue actions
11
High-priority risks
3
Assurance score
67%
| School | Status | Overdue | Risks | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northstar Central Academy | On track | 0 | 2 | 92% |
| Brookfield Primary School | Improving | 2 | 4 | 68% |
| Oaklands Community School | Improving | 1 | 3 | 71% |
| Riverbank Academy | Needs attention | 6 | 6 | 48% |
| Meadow View Primary | Improving | 0 | 2 | 74% |
| Kingsley Secondary School | On track | 0 | 2 | 88% |
Assessments you can answer
Scores and recommended actions update as you respond.
An AI assistant with sources
Every answer names the fictional records it used.
Discovery call
Could your trust operate with greater clarity?
Tell us how your trust or service currently coordinates operational work. We will respond with an honest view of whether this platform would help.
- 1Share a little context using the form.
- 2We arrange a short discovery conversation.
- 3We walk through the demonstration against your own operational questions.
Book a discovery call
Fields marked with an asterisk are required.