How to run a school platform evaluation session

Who should prepare for a school-platform review?

Invite a small group that represents classroom work, administration, leadership and family communication. Ask each person to bring one ordinary task and one recurring frustration. Prepare a blank role matrix, an evidence log and a list of current systems. Do not begin with a vendor feature checklist; begin with the school’s own work so the evaluation stays anchored to need.

This is a self-run agenda for a school team, not a confirmed Easy Edu service. Assign a chair and note-taker, choose an ordinary workflow and prepare non-sensitive test data. Invite a product representative only after the school has written the questions it needs answered.

UNESCO reports global internet connection rates of 40% for primary, 50% for lower-secondary and 65% for upper-secondary schools. Source: UNESCO 2023 GEM Report →

What decision must the school define first?

Write a single decision statement: what is being considered, for whom and by when. Add the constraints that cannot move, such as academic calendar, devices, connectivity or existing systems. Agree what would count as useful evidence. This stops a demonstration from expanding into unrelated possibilities and gives every attendee the same test for whether an answer is complete.

A usable decision statement names the service under review, the affected school group and the date by which a decision is needed. Put non-negotiable device, calendar, connectivity and policy constraints beside it. These boundaries keep the discussion focused when new possibilities appear.

UNESCO reports that 85% of countries have policies intended to improve school or learner connectivity. Source: UNESCO 2023 GEM Report →

Which school roles and exceptions should be mapped?

For each role, list what they need to see and do, who grants access, what happens when responsibilities change and which actions need approval. Include temporary and exceptional users. Google Classroom’s official material is a useful example of why central administration, different roles and guardian communication appear in school-platform evaluation, though it does not validate any Easy Edu capability.

Use a small permission matrix with roles down the side and view, create, change, approve and export across the top. Mark unknown cells rather than guessing. Add one joiner, one role change and one leaver so access changes become part of the review.

UNESCO reports that about two-thirds of education-software licences in one United States analysis were unused. Source: UNESCO 2023 GEM Report →

View

Record the result

Create

Record the result

Change

Record the result

Approve

Record the result

Which ordinary school scenario should the team trace?

Choose a timetable change, attendance correction, result publication or parent query. Follow the record from origin to completion. Ask where the authoritative value lives, what can be corrected, whether history is retained and how each role knows the change occurred. Use a real school scenario with anonymised details so the discussion exposes dependencies without sharing student information.

The scenario trace should show the record's origin, authoritative location, approval, correction, notification and history. Use anonymised or invented test data. A timetable change or attendance correction works because it crosses several roles without requiring a broad tour of every screen.

Google Classroom's official page describes 4 relevant audiences: teachers, students, administrators and parents or guardians. Source: Google for Education Classroom →

Which data-path questions belong in the review?

Ask who owns the data, who acts as controller or processor, where it is hosted, how access is logged, how long records remain, how exports work and how deletion is handled. Request the relevant written documents. Easy Edu has not yet supplied these details, so every answer belongs in the evidence log until the company can verify it.

Draw arrows from collection to transfer, storage, access, retention, export and deletion. Attach the document or demonstration that answers each point. Easy Edu has not supplied this operating record, so unanswered stages should stay visibly open rather than being inferred from the design.

UNESCO reports that only 16% of countries explicitly guarantee data privacy in education by law. Source: UNESCO 2023 GEM Report →

• □Ownership
• □Hosting
• □Retention
• □Export and deletion

What must the closing evidence register contain?

For each answer, record the claim, evidence requested, owner and due date. Mark concept screens separately from demonstrated functionality. Note assumptions and out-of-scope items. The session output is a decision record that can support a later comparison, pilot or procurement stage; it is not a recommendation to adopt a particular platform.

Close with one evidence register: claim, evidence requested, status, owner and due date. The next action may be clarification, a controlled demonstration, a pilot definition, commercial review or a pause. The agenda succeeds when that decision is explicit, regardless of whether a purchase follows. Circulate the register to attendees, record any disagreement beside the relevant item and schedule only the next evidence event, rather than another broad presentation that repeats questions without closing them.

UNESCO reports that 89% of 163 education-technology products in one pandemic-era analysis could survey children. Source: UNESCO 2023 GEM Report →