Comparing Schools Fairly: Standardising IT Metrics Across a MAT

The Context

Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) often struggle to allocate central IT funding fairly because they lack comparable data. A primary school with 200 pupils will naturally have a different IT profile than a secondary school with 1,500 pupils. The challenge is establishing a set of standardized metrics that allow the central team to objectively compare the "health" of IT across very different contexts.

Who This Guide is For

MAT executives, central IT directors, and Chief Operating Officers (COOs).

Why This Matters

Without standardized metrics, funding decisions are often driven by whoever complains the loudest, rather than objective need. This leads to severe inequality across the Trust, where one school operates with state-of-the-art equipment while another struggles with failing infrastructure, despite both schools serving the same MAT.

What Good Looks Like

A central dashboard that provides a normalized "IT Health Score" for every academy. This score is based on consistent metrics (e.g., percentage of devices under warranty, compliance with minimum security baselines, device-to-student ratios) allowing executives to instantly identify which schools require intervention.

Approach and Methodology

1. Define the Core Metrics: Select 5-7 key performance indicators (KPIs) that apply universally. Examples: % of devices within warranty, % of staff using MFA, Average age of classroom displays, Network uptime percentage.
2. Normalize the Data: Use ratios to compare different sized schools fairly. Instead of counting "total number of laptops," measure the "student-to-device ratio."
3. Establish the Baseline Standard: Define the MAT's Target Operating Model (TOM). For example, "Every school must achieve a 1:1 student-to-device ratio and 100% MFA compliance."
4. Automate Data Collection: Do not rely on local IT staff manually filling out monthly spreadsheets (which leads to data manipulation). Pull these metrics automatically from central management systems (like Intune or your asset platform).
5. The RAG Dashboard: Present the metrics in a simple Red, Amber, Green dashboard for the Trust board. A school in 'Red' triggers a mandatory support intervention.
6. Transparent Funding Allocation: Use the dashboard to justify capital expenditure. "School A is receiving £50,000 this year because their core infrastructure is currently categorized as High Risk (Red) against our MAT baseline."

Evidence to Retain

• The defined MAT IT Target Operating Model (TOM) and associated metrics.
• The monthly or termly IT Health Dashboard presented to the Trust board.
• Funding allocation models tied directly to the dashboard metrics.

Questions Leadership Should Ask

• "If we have a spare £100,000 in the central capital budget, what objective data are we using to decide which school receives it?"
• "Are we confident that the data we are using to compare these schools is accurate and hasn't been manually altered?"

Common Pitfalls

• Comparing Apples to Oranges: Trying to compare the total IT spend of a primary school to a secondary school without adjusting for pupil numbers or curriculum requirements.
• Metric Overload: Trying to track 50 different metrics, making the dashboard impossible for non-technical executives to read or act upon.
• Weaponizing the Data: Using the dashboard solely to punish local IT staff for poor performance, rather than using it to identify where they need additional central support and funding.

How asitplan Can Help

asitplan is designed specifically for this challenge. It aggregates asset, compliance, and infrastructure data across multiple academies, normalizing the data to provide Trust executives with a clear, comparable, and objective view of IT health across the entire MAT.