School Management Information Systems (MIS) are one of those things that every school needs but nobody truly loves. They’re supposed to be the backbone of school operations—handling attendance, timetabling, behaviour tracking, communications, payments, and more. But despite their central role, they often feel more like an unavoidable burden than a well-designed tool.

At Involve Education, we come at this from a unique perspective. We’ve seen the use of these platforms across thousands of schools, giving us a chance to witness not only their claimed features on paper, but the real-world results of schools trying (and often failing) to make them work. Schools don’t just pick an MIS and get on with their lives—they battle against these systems daily, wrestling with clunky interfaces, missing features, and integrations that never quite work as promised.

A brief history of the school MIS

MIS platforms started life in the 1980s with a simple purpose: take the morning and afternoon registers, generate census reports for the government, and call it a day. But as technology evolved and schools demanded more, these systems began absorbing additional requirements. Rather than being designed from scratch for modern school operations, they became bloated beasts—patchworked together with extra features over the years, often without much thought for usability or integration.

As a result, today’s MIS platforms aren’t really built for the way schools work, they’re designed around outdated assumptions. Instead of being smooth, seamless systems that just work, most MIS platforms feel like an awkward mix of old and new, with schools left to deal with the consequences. In technical terms, the typical MIS is essentially a sprawling database with a late 90s interface wrapped around it.

So, the real question isn’t which MIS is the best? – but rather – which is the least worst?

To help make sense of the choices, we’ve taken a light-hearted (but painfully accurate) approach—comparing each major MIS to a former UK prime minister. Because, much like these politicians, MIS platforms often arrive with bold promises, only to deliver bureaucracy, disappointment, and the slow erosion of hope.

SIMS – The Margaret Thatcher of MIS

Revolutionary in its day, but out of touch.

SIMS was the MIS for decades. It revolutionised school administration, bringing structure, order, and an iron grip on the market. But much like Thatcher’s policies, what was once groundbreaking is now outdated and cumbersome.

Its attempt to modernise with a cloud-based version has been, to put it politely, a fiasco. Rather than a seamless upgrade, the piecemeal approach has seen key functionalities failing to integrate properly with the rest of SIMS. Schools were promised a slick, modern MIS, but instead they’ve been left with a fragmented system that somehow feels even more frustrating than before. The baggage of its legacy is too great, and the transition has been less of a reinvention and more of a slow-motion car crash.

And yet, SIMS clings on. Schools don’t use it because they love it—they use it because it’s familiar and because they don’t think there’s a good enough alternative to justify the hassle of changing. It’s not a ringing endorsement, but it’s enough to keep it in power.

Bromcom – The Theresa May of MIS

Terrible at presentation, but actually kind of works (given unlimited patience).

Bromcom doesn’t do anything well, but it does do everything—if you have the time, patience, and willingness to repeatedly kick it into submission. Oh, apart from school fees for independent schools.

It’s fully cloud-based, cheaper than SIMS, and technically has all the core MIS functions built in, meaning you don’t need third-party add-ons. The problem? Nothing is intuitive.

Every task takes twice as many clicks as it should, the interface is clunky and uninspiring, and trying to generate reports feels like an elaborate test of endurance. But if you’re willing to wrestle with it, Bromcom will eventually do what you need it to do—just not in a way that makes you particularly happy.

Like Theresa May, it lacks charisma, struggles with presentation, and doesn’t win many fans. But in the end it keeps things moving—even if it’s a painful journey.

iSAMS – The David Cameron of MIS

Trying to be modern and progressive, but still just the same old.

iSAMS positioned itself as a more modern, cloud-based alternative to the older systems. It has a certain private-school polish that makes it popular in independent schools, and it feels more contemporary. But under the surface, it’s not that different from the rest. It talks a big game about innovation, but much like Cameron’s government, it mostly follows the same old playbook with a friendlier face. But hey, the icons are quite pretty.

One thing iSAMS can confidently claim above the rest: it has the most modules. More modules than you could ever possibly need. More modules than you’d want. More modules than actually makes sense. In practice, it means you’ll never quite know which module you’re meant to use for what. The modules don’t integrate properly with each other, creating a labyrinth where every task takes 20 clicks instead of one.

Yes, iSAMS makes everything more difficult to do—but why settle for efficiency when you could have a gloriously modular system that keeps you guessing?

Arbor – The Boris Johnson of MIS

A big swing vote with lots of bluster, but lacking real substance.

Arbor has been gaining traction, positioning itself as a fresh alternative to legacy MIS platforms. It’s loud, it’s attention-grabbing, and it has convinced a lot of schools to take the plunge. But once you’re using it, you start to notice the cracks. Some features feel rushed, others are missing, and while it certainly sounds like it’s changing the game, the reality is often less impressive.

Most tellingly, Arbor doesn’t actually do timetabling—it only recently bought TimeTabler in an attempt to patch over this glaring hole. So while it markets itself as a complete school MIS, it’s still reliant on bolting on third-party tools, much like SIMS does with Nova-T. Like Boris, it shakes things up, but whether it leaves things in a better state is another question entirely.

Furlong – The John Major of MIS

Grey, functional, and largely forgettable.

Furlong doesn’t make many waves. It’s there, it works (mostly), and some schools seem fairly content(ish) using it. It’s the kind of MIS that nobody can quite be bothered to complain about. Like John Major, it’s steady, unremarkable, and entirely uninspiring.

That said, Furlong does have a few things going for it. It’s more lightweight than the bloated all-in-one systems, making it a reasonable choice for small independent schools that don’t need complex integrations or a vast array of features.

But in an era where schools need MIS platforms that integrate smoothly, automate admin, and actually save time, Furlong feels like a relic from a quieter, less demanding time. It hasn’t kept up with the modern needs of larger schools, and while it avoids some of the frustrations of more bloated systems, it also lacks the power, flexibility, and innovation that schools actually need.

It’s the MIS equivalent of faded 90s optimism—not actively bad, just… there. If you want something safe, simple, and unambitious, Furlong will do the job. But if you’re looking for something that will move your school forward, you’ll probably find it lacking.

Engage – The William Hague of MIS

It promised a lot, found its niche, but never really went mainstream.

OK – he never actually made it to Prime Minister, but bear with us on this one… Engage has a loyal user base, or at least a user base, mostly in independent schools, but beyond that it never really gained mass appeal. It has a reputation for being clunky and frustrating, earning it the pet name Enrage among the schools that use it—because more often than not that’s exactly the effect it has.

So why do private schools put up with it? Because while Engage is a pain to use, it does some things slightly better than the competition—particularly when it comes to club management, extracurricular activities, and billing. Independent schools need a system that can handle wraparound care, after-school clubs, transport fees, and parental billing, and Engage integrates these functions better than most other MIS platforms.

That said, "better" doesn’t mean "good." The interface is outdated, the navigation is far from intuitive, and making the most of its features requires extensive training. Many schools stick with Engage because they’ve already invested so much effort in figuring out how to use it that switching would feel like starting all over again.

Like William Hague, it had potential, a small dedicated following, and a few ideas that weren’t terrible—but in the grand scheme of things, it never quite became the leader it was meant to be.

So, which one should I choose?

Unless you’re using Engage or WCBS (which didn’t quite make our list – but we look forward to hearing your suggested politician), the basic answer is: stick with what you already have.

Switching MIS is a huge hassle. You have to wrestle poorly structured data from one system into another system that structures data in a different but equally unhelpful way. Then you have to train all the staff, rebuild workflows, and figure out all the other processes that suddenly don’t work anymore because the new system doesn’t quite handle things the way you expected.

If you are on Engage or WCBS and looking to move, we’d probably suggest Bromcom or Furlong (if you’re an independent school). They’re not amazing, but they are functional and won’t break the bank. And let’s face it—nobody wants to be doing that right now.