SchoolDeck runs a multi-campus trust on one definition set: fee heads, grading schemes and the academic calendar are defined at the trust, while values, collections and results stay at the campus. That is what makes a Monday roll-up across campuses comparable instead of merely aggregated.
This is for a trust running several schools. A group running a school and a college and a coaching arm needs three products, not one — see education groups.
A trust with four schools usually has four versions of the truth, and the reason is almost never dishonesty. It is that each campus defined "fee collected" slightly differently. One counts a cheque on deposit, another on clearance. One counts a concession as collected, another as waived.
Roll those four up and the total is meaningless — not wrong exactly, but not measuring one thing. The board then makes decisions on it, which is the actual risk.
This is the single structural decision that makes a group installation work. The trust owns what a thing means; the campus owns what it currently is.
A class teacher at one campus must not be able to see another campus’s ledger, and this has to be a permission boundary rather than an absence of a link on the screen. Field-level permissions apply per branch, and the audit log records cross-campus access by trust staff.
Trust-level staff see across campuses by design; that access is logged like any other, so the question "who looked at this" always has an answer.
Collection against target by campus, admissions against capacity by campus, staff vacancies, and the exceptions that need a trust decision rather than a campus one. Each figure opens to the campus and then to the rows.
Comparability is the whole point. Two campuses at 82% and 91% collection are only worth comparing if both computed 82 and 91 the same way, which is what the definition layer guarantees.
Phrased the way they arrive, answered so each one stands on its own.
No. A group is priced and configured as a group precisely so the definitions and the roll-up hold everywhere. A campus on a different tier would be a campus computing different numbers.
Typically four to six weeks against two to three for a single school. The additional time is nearly all definition work at the trust — agreeing what the shared terms mean — rather than technical setup.
Yes, within the trust’s scheme. The grading structure is common so results are comparable; the printed format can carry the campus’s own identity.
That works — the board is a property of the enrolment. The trust-level definitions cover what is genuinely shared, such as fee recognition, while assessment structures stay per board.
Checked by the Implementations desk on 7 September 2026. Corrections go in the page, dated, rather than quietly.
Pricing is on the page, in the open, with the counting rule written next to it. Nobody has to book a call to find out what it costs.
See pricingForty minutes with an implementation engineer — your classes, your fee heads, your grading scheme, entered as we go. No slides, no sample school.