Arbor shutdown ScholarPack and Integris

[ajp233]

...by Feb 2026

[Cat_Jam148]

For those who wanted a little more information than the initial post...

 

https://arbor-education.com/blog-the-future-of-scholarpack-integris-and-arbor/

 

TLDR: Goodbye ScholarPack & Integris

[Ditto]

A few initial thiughts.

 

• That's not much notice.
  
• I reckon that's around 10% of the MIS market.
  
• Arbor would jump to about 40% market share, potentially overtaking SIMS.
  
• How many schools would/should start a procurement process?
  
• Who pays for the migration?
  
• Will current licensing charges be honoured?
  
• How long before Bromcom anounce a legal challenge?
  

[ajp233]

A few initial thiughts.

 

[*]How long before Bromcom anounce a legal challenge?

 

ROFL

[Zammo]

Arbor will move schools to Arbor Core. However Arbor Core does not include meal management or advanced parental communication. So schools with that functionality in ScholarPack will require the Arbor Comms package. As Arbor has a base cost of approx £1000 regardless of package schools (especially smaller ones) will see a big increase in their MIS costs.

 

How much would a small school be paying for ScholarPack?

[JamesWeatherill]

Just to jump in to clarify:

 

Arbor Core will include meal management and SMS/email functionality. Schools can choose to upgrade to more advanced parental communication and payment modules in Arbor Comms, but should save money overall by replacing third party systems that offer similar functionality.

[DGardiner]

Where do we stand procurement wise?

Can we just accept this move and not end up in hot water?

We have 13 schools on scholarpack, Can they just shift us to arbor? or would this trigger a procurement excersise? or do we need to wait and see if bromcom decide to lawyer up?

Edited February 14, 2025 by DGardiner

[JamesWeatherill]

Where do we stand procurement wise?

Can we just accept this move and not end up in hot water?

We have 13 schools on scholarpack, Can they just shift us to arbor? or would this trigger a procurement excersise? or do we need to wait and see if bromcom decide to lawyer up?

Completely understand why you'd feel like this with all the recent goings on. Have DM'd you so we can pickup direct!

[C3PO]

Interesting from WhichMIS? that highlights points and concerns as below:

 

“Best practice guidance suggests that schools should regularly review their MIS system to ensure it meets their requirements. Where they decide they need to change their MIS, it is suggested that do so through a compliant procurement process such as using a framework etc.However, since all three of the MIS systems being discussed here are owned by the same organisation, The Key Group, would this be seen as a new MIS procurement or merely an upgrade from one product to one with more functionality, in much the same way a school might decide to upgrade a product from one package to a higher one?

Only the legal profession can answer that.We are also sure that there will be concerns around competition rules and whether this dominant position and the potential to further consolidate their market share might be construed as limiting competition by forcing these schools to move to Arbor. Again, a question for the legal profession.”

Edited February 14, 2025 by C3PO

[Ditto]

Interesting from WhichMIS? that highlights points and concerns as below:

 

“Best practice guidance suggests that schools should regularly review their MIS system to ensure it meets their requirements. Where they decide they need to change their MIS, it is suggested that do so through a compliant procurement process such as using a framework etc.However, since all three of the MIS systems being discussed here are owned by the same organisation, The Key Group, would this be seen as a new MIS procurement or merely an upgrade from one product to one with more functionality, in much the same way a school might decide to upgrade a product from one package to a higher one?

Only the legal profession can answer that.We are also sure that there will be concerns around competition rules and whether this dominant position and the potential to further consolidate their market share might be construed as limiting competition by forcing these schools to move to Arbor. Again, a question for the legal profession.”

Like I said...well except for correction of the spelling mistakes!

 

A few initial thoughts.

 

...

...

 

• How long before Bromcom announce a legal challenge?
  

Won't be long now

[Damon]

This is absolutely the right thing to do from the perspective of The Key and not a massive surprise. I'm not sure how this wouldn't qualify as 'material change' that would necessitate re-procurement though?

 

Are all contract terms the same, service levels, system capabilities and so on? I doubt anyone would be making the case that Integris and Scholarpack are the same as Arbor in terms of functionality.

 

I seem to recall MIS suppliers having an issue with ESS planning to migrate SIMS 7 users to SIMS Primary when that was a thing as it was a material change in functionality.

 

If I was a MAT, I'd probably want to take independent legal advice over this.

[gaz350b]

Wish we had 12 months notice when progresso got shutdown! If your data is in a good state any move should be painless.

 

If it’s a mess get people cleaning it up asap.

[C3PO]

From the previous post re costs, if it going to cost schools more to purchase the comms package and more expensive overall then would schools not have to undertake a vfm exercise and compare across the market space which makes sense.

[vikpaw]

Great to see relatively good notice period, though tying in to end of academic year would have been nicer - say August 26. I wonder how much flexibility there will be...

 

Interested to see how this develops. Particularly the interpretation of 'material change' - i'm assuming it's more contractual and service related than feature focussed. If you're getting a free upgrade and more features, you wouldn't mind if there was little to no cost.

 

If schools are happy to proceed - all good, or, will some want to find out their options and explore options to switch product?

 

A rare opportunity for a supplier to really show how open and collaborative they can be with their customers.

[JamesWeatherill]

Happy to clarify some of the questions asked here, particularly as some are a bit technical.

1. All schools have 12 months to switch
   
2. Schools are definitely not being “forced” to move to Arbor - they have free choice
   
3. There is no material change to contract terms, the price, the product functionality and service levels are similar or improved, and so the move to Arbor Core is allowed under procurement law.
   
4. If a school wants to change the terms of their contract, then they should of course follow proper procurement guidelines where the contract value is over £214,904, per the terms of the Procurement Act 2023.
   

 

​On Viks point above, we want schools to be happy on Arbor and we aim to provide the very best product/service in the market. I don't pretend we get everything right all the time, but we do try to be transparent and upfront with everyone. I hope you get that from everyone you meet from Arbor (inc me).

Edited February 20, 2025 by JamesWeatherill

[paulkerton]

though tying in to end of academic year would have been nicer

 

The problem with that however, is that everyone will want to move in that six week window, which would be around 100 a day as they've got about 3000 schools on Integris and Scholarpack.

Imagine the training chaos that followed that?!

[C3PO]

With point 4, does it mean that anything over the £214K contract value has to follow procurement guidelines and anything below doesn't.

I would have thought anything over £10k has to follow strict guidelines - given this is public funds.

Or have I just misread it?

[Bromcom-PR]

On 20/02/2025 at 17:00, JamesWeatherill said:

Happy to clarify some of the questions asked here, particularly as some are a bit technical.

 

 

1. All schools have 12 months to switch
2. Schools are definitely not being “forced” to move to Arbor - they have free choice
3. There is no material change to contract terms, the price, the product functionality and service levels are similar or improved, and so the move to Arbor Core is allowed under procurement law.
4. If a school wants to change the terms of their contract, then they should of course follow proper procurement guidelines where the contract value is over £214,904, per the terms of the Procurement Act 2023.

 

 

 

On Viks point above, we want schools to be happy on Arbor and we aim to provide the very best product/service in the market. I don't pretend we get everything right all the time, but we do try to be transparent and upfront with everyone. I hope you get that from everyone you meet from Arbor (inc me).

 

 

What is DfE saying about all this???

 

https://www.whichmis.com/scholarpack-and-integris-customers-transitioning-to-arbor/

 

[Steve21]

11 hours ago, Bromcom-PR said:

 

 

What is DfE saying about all this???

 

https://www.whichmis.com/scholarpack-and-integris-customers-transitioning-to-arbor/

 

Nothing at all by the looks of it... just more Bromcom scaremongering tactics

As per the linked article

Yet again the Bromcom PR machine just spouting out more of the same biased articles/websites that make out something that isn't actually said?

Steve

this FOI request and the received response does not clarify any specific issues or procurement rules around this MIS transition

-

[Quark]

Looks like more of the same scare tactics, I really wish this would just stop!

 

Given the litigiousness from some MIS companies, in our process our procurement advisor pointed out that there was a difference between Procurement Law and procurement advice. The law is that you must do a formal procurement if the contract value was over £214k, but government advice below that threshold was to ensure you were getting value for money.

[Bromcom-PR]

Anyone can repeat as follows: Upload AI two content and check differences. Here Gemini by Google used. Because Bromcom is Microsoft stack and did not want it to be labelled "biased"!!!  

 

Prompt used was:

"Compare the message in the attached  (Edugeek) and what DfE is stated advice (WhichMIS)  is in the following article":

 

Gemini response:

 

... the key points from both the message and the article (DfE / WhichMIS) to compare them:

 

Message from James Weatherill (Arbor):

• Schools have 12 months to switch. This implies a deadline and a push for schools to move to Arbor.
• Schools are not being "forced" to move to Arbor - they have free choice. This contradicts the implied deadline and suggests a choice that might not be entirely free given the discontinuation of ScholarPack and Integris.
• No material change to contract terms, price, functionality, and service levels are similar or improved. This argues against the need for a new procurement process, suggesting the transition is a simple upgrade.
• If schools want to change terms, they must follow procurement guidelines for contracts over £214,904. This acknowledges procurement rules but only for significant contract changes.

Article Regarding DfE Advice:

• Schools are autonomous and responsible for complying with procurement regulations. Emphasizes school responsibility and freedom of choice.
• Procurement obligations apply below £214,904. Highlights the importance of following procurement rules even for smaller contracts.
• Contracts over £10,000 should be procured via a framework or with at least three quotes if under £40,000. Provides specific guidance for smaller contracts.
• MIS contract value is the full cost over 4 years, including all associated costs and VAT. Clarifies how to calculate contract value for procurement purposes.
• Whether the transition is a "material change" is key to determining if a new procurement is needed. Identifies the crucial question that is not definitively answered.
• A "material change" is defined as a change to the type of goods, services, or works not already provided for in the contract. Cites the Procurement Act definition.
• A change of MIS platform seems likely to be construed as a "material change." Offers an opinion that contradicts Arbor's claim of no material change.
• Schools should undertake due diligence and get professional advice. Recommends careful consideration and seeking expert guidance.

Comparison and Key Differences:

• "Free Choice" vs. Practical Reality: Arbor emphasizes "free choice," but the discontinuation of existing systems creates a situation where schools may feel pressured to switch. The DfE article acknowledges the choice but stresses the need for due diligence and adherence to procurement rules.
• "No Material Change" vs. Likely Material Change: Arbor claims no material change to avoid triggering procurement processes. The DfE article, however, suggests that a change of MIS platform likely constitutes a material change, requiring a new procurement.
• Procurement Thresholds: Arbor mentions the £214,904 threshold, implying it's the only relevant one. The DfE article highlights the importance of procurement rules even for contracts below this threshold, especially those over £10,000.
• Guidance and Responsibility: Arbor offers a simplified view, suggesting the transition is straightforward. The DfE article emphasizes the complexity of procurement regulations and the school's responsibility to understand and comply with them.

In essence, Arbor's message presents the transition as a simple, non-material change, while the DfE article emphasizes the need for schools to carefully consider the transition as a potential material change and adhere to all relevant procurement regulations.

 

The article strongly advises schools to conduct due diligence and seek professional advice, which contrasts with Arbor's more straightforward approach. The discrepancy highlights the potential for schools to be misled if they rely solely on Arbor's information without seeking independent guidance.

[Primus]

6 minutes ago, Bromcom-PR said:

Anyone can repeat as follows: Upload AI two content and check differences. Here Gemini by Google used. Because Bromcom is Microsoft stack and did not want it to be labelled "biased"!!!  

 

Prompt used was:

"Compare the message in the attached  (Edugeek) and what DfE is stated advice (WhichMIS)  is in the following article":

 

Gemini response:

 

... the key points from both the message and the article (DfE / WhichMIS) to compare them:

 

Message from James Weatherill (Arbor):

• Schools have 12 months to switch. This implies a deadline and a push for schools to move to Arbor.
• Schools are not being "forced" to move to Arbor - they have free choice. This contradicts the implied deadline and suggests a choice that might not be entirely free given the discontinuation of ScholarPack and Integris.
• No material change to contract terms, price, functionality, and service levels are similar or improved. This argues against the need for a new procurement process, suggesting the transition is a simple upgrade.
• If schools want to change terms, they must follow procurement guidelines for contracts over £214,904. This acknowledges procurement rules but only for significant contract changes.

Article Regarding DfE Advice:

• Schools are autonomous and responsible for complying with procurement regulations. Emphasizes school responsibility and freedom of choice.
• Procurement obligations apply below £214,904. Highlights the importance of following procurement rules even for smaller contracts.
• Contracts over £10,000 should be procured via a framework or with at least three quotes if under £40,000. Provides specific guidance for smaller contracts.
• MIS contract value is the full cost over 4 years, including all associated costs and VAT. Clarifies how to calculate contract value for procurement purposes.
• Whether the transition is a "material change" is key to determining if a new procurement is needed. Identifies the crucial question that is not definitively answered.
• A "material change" is defined as a change to the type of goods, services, or works not already provided for in the contract. Cites the Procurement Act definition.
• A change of MIS platform seems likely to be construed as a "material change." Offers an opinion that contradicts Arbor's claim of no material change.
• Schools should undertake due diligence and get professional advice. Recommends careful consideration and seeking expert guidance.

Comparison and Key Differences:

• "Free Choice" vs. Practical Reality: Arbor emphasizes "free choice," but the discontinuation of existing systems creates a situation where schools may feel pressured to switch. The DfE article acknowledges the choice but stresses the need for due diligence and adherence to procurement rules.
• "No Material Change" vs. Likely Material Change: Arbor claims no material change to avoid triggering procurement processes. The DfE article, however, suggests that a change of MIS platform likely constitutes a material change, requiring a new procurement.
• Procurement Thresholds: Arbor mentions the £214,904 threshold, implying it's the only relevant one. The DfE article highlights the importance of procurement rules even for contracts below this threshold, especially those over £10,000.
• Guidance and Responsibility: Arbor offers a simplified view, suggesting the transition is straightforward. The DfE article emphasizes the complexity of procurement regulations and the school's responsibility to understand and comply with them.

In essence, Arbor's message presents the transition as a simple, non-material change, while the DfE article emphasizes the need for schools to carefully consider the transition as a potential material change and adhere to all relevant procurement regulations.

 

The article strongly advises schools to conduct due diligence and seek professional advice, which contrasts with Arbor's more straightforward approach. The discrepancy highlights the potential for schools to be misled if they rely solely on Arbor's information without seeking independent guidance.

It's time to give it up, you're shooting yourself in the foot with these posts.

[ITGuyNW]

Are these posts AI? Every time I see one, I trust this company less and less.

[Cat_Jam148]

Ohhh Bromcom PR is on a roll today with these posts! Resurrection of old threads and now AI dribble...

 

Their posts are truly a masterclass in subtly dissing other MIS providers. It really makes me wish we would've gone with them when choosing our MIS! Where was this calibre of post then huh? 

(Sarcasm)

Edited April 10, 2025 by Cat_Jam148

[dmj]

1 hour ago, Cat_Jam148 said:

Their posts are truly a masterclass in subtly dissing other MIS providers. It really makes me wish we would've gone with them when choosing our MIS! Where was this calibre of post then huh? 

(Sarcasm)

Masterclass in wasting taxpayers money more like