School platform usage review after go-live

Why should a school check whether its platform is being used?

Because paying for a platform and using it are different things. A school that has bought a platform can only tell whether it is working for teachers, students, parents and administrators by checking who uses it and for what, and one United States analysis that UNESCO reports found most licences there unused. This guide is for school leaders and administrators checking their own platform, not about monitoring students.

In one United States analysis, about two-thirds of education software licences went unused. UNESCO's 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report says: “In the United States, an average of 67% of education software licences were unused and 98% were not used intensively.” The figure is from the United States, not Malaysia, but the risk it describes applies to any school paying per licence.

The same report cites the EdTech Genome Project: 85% of some 7,000 pedagogical tools, which cost USD 13 billion, were “either a poor fit or implemented incorrectly”. A poor fit and a weak rollout can both leave software unused, and each needs a different fix. UNESCO's report home page adds that “Education technology products change every 36 months, on average”, so a platform reviewed once at purchase may not be the same product within about three years.

When should a school review its platform after go-live?

Review it during the first weeks of real use, again before the end of the first term or semester, and then once a year well before the renewal date. The first review catches problems while staff are still learning the platform; the yearly one gives the school its answer before it is asked to pay again.

The Education Endowment Foundation's Putting Evidence to Work: A School's Guide to Implementation (second edition, December 2019) recommends: “Treat implementation as a process, not an event; plan and execute it in stages.” Its Recommendation 5 is: “Support staff, monitor progress, solve problems, and adapt strategies as the approach is used for the first time.”

Both are general school-improvement guidance written for schools in England, not advice on buying software, but they fit a platform rollout well. What a rollout itself should cover is in the school software onboarding checklist.

What should a usage review measure?

Measure use role by role, against what the school set out to do: how many licences are paid for and how many accounts are active, which tasks each role completes in the platform, which tasks still happen elsewhere, and what support staff have asked for. Agree the measures before rollout, so the review compares like with like.

Decide what to measure before go-live, not after. Digital Promise's EdTech Procurement Framework, written for US school district leaders, puts this in its Design & Plan phase: “Collaborate with your educators and school leaders to build a professional learning and measurement plan to monitor implementation fidelity and to evaluate impact for your targeted teaching and learning goals.”

Write down what counts as an active account before rollout. UNESCO's same line says 98% of the licences were “not used intensively”, so a sign-in alone says little. Our practical suggestion: agree a rule for each role, such as a task completed in the platform within a period the school chooses, and ask the vendor in writing which usage information an administrator can see or export, so the school can count it the same way at every review. Dividing the yearly licence cost by the number of active accounts then gives the school its own cost per active user.

Who should see and change what, role by role, is set out in the guide to evaluating teacher, student, parent and administrator access, and the parent side in what parents should see.

What if staff still keep their own spreadsheets?

Treat every task still done outside the platform as a finding, not a failure. Ask why it happens: the platform may not do the task, staff may not know it can, or the old copy may still be required by someone. Then either move the task into the platform, train for it, or drop the duplicate.

The UK Department for Education's Making data work report (November 2018) records that “The Workload Challenge (2014) identified unnecessary tasks linked to assessment and data with 56% of respondents citing tasks around ‘recording, inputting, monitoring and analysing data’ as burdensome”, and advises school leaders to “minimise or eliminate the number of pieces of information teachers are expected to compile”.

That report is guidance for schools in England, not Malaysian policy. How to find and remove double entry is covered in reducing duplicate school record entry.

How does the review feed the renewal decision?

The review gives the school the numbers it needs before renewal: licences paid for against accounts in use, and the tasks the platform does or does not carry. Hold it early enough to act before the notice date, and bring the licence count, the price and the contract terms to the renewal conversation.

Licences belong on a register with a review date. The UK Department for Education's digital leadership and governance standard says the contracts register includes “licences” and “subscriptions”, so that schools know their contracts “and when they need to be reviewed”, and keep track of buying and licensing “so that schools or colleges can get better value for money when renewing software and hardware”.

It warns that without the registers a school risks “budget pressures due to accidental renewal of subscriptions, software and hardware that might not be needed, or are not the best value for money”. The same standard asks schools in England to assign a senior leadership team member to be responsible for digital technology, working with the finance team among others. The renewal and notice terms themselves are in the school platform contract checklist.

Which records checks belong in the yearly review?

Check that the records held in the platform are still accurate and still needed, decide what happens to each kind of record, and remove what the school no longer needs. A usage review is a natural moment for this, because it already looks at what the platform holds and who uses it.

A yearly check of personal data is standard guidance in England. The UK Department for Education's record keeping and management guidance says: “You should carry out an audit of all the personal data you hold each year to check it is up to date and still needed.” It adds: “Document the decision you make against each data item.” and “If you identify any information you no longer need, you should dispose of it safely.”

That guidance is written for schools in England and is not Malaysian law. For a Malaysian reference, the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (Act 709), in the 2022 reprint published by the Personal Data Protection Department, sets out a Retention Principle, that personal data “shall not be kept longer than is necessary for the fulfilment of that purpose”, and a Data Integrity Principle, to keep it “accurate, complete, not misleading and kept up-to-date”. The Act describes itself as “An Act to regulate the processing of personal data in commercial transactions”, and section 3(1) says “This Act shall not apply to the Federal Government and State Governments”, so whether it applies to a given school needs the school's own advice. What a school should agree with a vendor about export and deletion is in school data ownership, export and deletion.

What should a school decide at the end of the review?

Choose one of four outcomes and write it down: keep the platform as it is, keep it with more training and support, change the number of licences at renewal, or plan an exit. Share the findings with the people who use it and the people who pay for it, so the decision is understood before the renewal arrives.

A school should share its review results with users and payers before deciding on long-term use. Digital Promise's framework describes this step for pilots, in its Sustain & Scale phase: “Share the pilot results with critical partners, such as the school board, community partners, funders, teachers, and students, to collaboratively develop a comprehensive plan for expanded and/or long-term use of successful tools.”

If the answer is an exit, the records have to move: see how to move school records into a new platform. If a different product is being considered, a pilot before buying is the next step.