Student Information System for Multi-Campus Groups

The group office controls the data model, the role catalogue, the upgrade schedule and the reporting taxonomy. Each campus controls operational configuration: its calendar, periods, grading scheme inside the group's approved bands, fee items inside the group's chart of accounts, and local document templates. The platform treats the group layer as policy and the campus layer as execution. A campus that needs a genuine schema extension — a state-specific compliance field, for example — gets it as a campus-scoped custom field rather than a fork. We have learned that groups fail when every campus is allowed to invent its own data model, and they also fail when the group office tries to dictate every dropdown — the role hierarchy is built to make that line explicit.

The transfer is a structured workflow, not a copy. The student ID is permanent across the group. The originating campus's record is closed out with a transfer-out marker; the receiving campus opens a continuation, not a duplicate. The academic transcript, attendance history, behaviour log, fee ledger, medical record and document set are linked, not re-keyed — they remain readable in their original tenant under audit, with the receiving campus inheriting a verified, signed view. Mid-year transfers reconcile fees automatically against the group fee policy. This is the exact integrity property that ad-hoc 'transfer certificate plus email plus PDF' processes cannot give you across a chain.

For three or more campuses under common ownership, the single multi-tenant instance is almost always correct, and we deploy it as the default. Separate-instance-per-campus is appropriate only in two narrow cases: (1) regulatory data-residency rules force a specific campus's data to physically sit in a different country and your jurisdiction does not accept logical tenant isolation, or (2) a campus is a joint venture or franchise that may exit the group. Outside those cases, separate instances multiply your upgrade burden, your integration surface, your DR drill count and your reporting consolidation effort by the number of campuses. The OpenEduCat tenant model gives you the isolation guarantees of separate instances — row-level boundaries, scoped backups, scoped audit — without the operational tax.

Yes. A parent with one child in the primary campus and another in the senior campus signs in once and sees both children, both fee accounts, both attendance feeds and both communication streams in one app. The parent identity is held at the group layer; child enrolments are held at the campus layer; the app composes the view. Group-wide announcements, campus-specific announcements and class-specific announcements are routed by audience without forcing parents to install multiple apps or maintain multiple logins — which, candidly, is the single most common reason families perceive a group as 'disorganised'.

OpenEduCat licences a multi-campus group as a single deployment, not as the sum of its campuses, so adding a new campus to an existing group is closer to a configuration cost than a new-product cost. The pricing model rewards consolidation rather than punishing it. Total cost of ownership in a multi-campus group is dominated not by licences but by integration, identity, reporting consolidation and upgrades — exactly the costs that the single-instance, federated-identity, group-reporting architecture is designed to compress. Groups moving from a federation of point SIS products typically retire several adjacent contracts — parent app, identity sync, reporting warehouse, transfer tooling — in the move.

District-level PowerSchool deployments are designed around the US public-district model: a single board of governance, a single state reporting authority, a fairly uniform calendar and grading scheme across schools, and tight integration with state-specific compliance reports. OpenEduCat's multi-campus model is built for the international and private-group reality: campuses on different boards (CBSE, IB, Cambridge, state, MoE) in different countries on different fiscal calendars under common ownership, where the group office is a holding entity and each campus is an autonomous accreditation unit. We retain group-level governance and reporting, but we do not assume a single state reporting endpoint or a single curriculum — the configuration surface is built for heterogeneity. Groups that have outgrown a US-district SIS, or that never fit it in the first place, are our most common migration source.