It is the time of year when the seam of parents grumbling about school apps rises to the surface of social media. Starting the school year (or starting a new school entirely, as my son has this year) is in part a todo list of digital admin.

While not all apps equally bad, some border on unusable. Even the ones that are better designed represent a new set of user accounts to manage and a new help desk contact when things go wrong. None of the apps talk to each other, so they often say contradictory things. I doubt many would pass the government service standard that public sector designed digital services are supposed to meet (and I helped pen back in the 2010’s at the Government Digital Service).

The root problem is that, the domains these apps operate in tend towards monopoly. Monopolies operated by private companies in have little incentive to meet the needs of their true users (instead prioritising the needs of procurement officers and IT departments). Parent Pay, which collects school dinner money and payments for trips, for example apparently has about 50% of the market. (I’ve cited Parent Pay here purely because they are one of the best known, rather than being particularly bad). Locally, just like local buses, these apps are de facto monopolies at the point of use.

This is not an uncommon pattern in the public domain. Digital has become more important to the delivery of public services, but governments understanding that digital = infrastructure has not keep up. Nor has the understanding that people’s experience of public services is one that is, in part, digital . So, in areas like education, health, transport and local government, again and again we see the pattern of dependance on monopoly and dupopoly-shaped markets. In turn, central and local government’s ability to improve the public’s experience is stymied. “Congratulations, you now qualify for free breakfast clubs!' “Sorry, you need to contact the help desk, there’s a problem with your account.”

A government serious about transforming the public’s experience of education would look at the digital parts of that experience. They would look at the parts which should be common infrastructure (payments seem like an obvious one) and either build their own, or acquire an existing player and operate it as common infrastructure for all schools. How close to 100% coverage should something like ParentPay need to get before arguing for nationalising it becomes a serious policy option? This is not an anti private sector argument. A government serious about the public experience would also set design and data standards that clearly demarcate which parts should be left to the market so private companies can solve problems that are new of unique, and what the minimum standards of usability it expects look like.