Digital leadership
Every school has a digital plan somewhere. Very few become the school the plan described: teachers confident with technology, classrooms actually changed, and the proof there when anyone asks. Edda connects the whole chain, from baseline to evidence, so the plan, the people, the work, and the proof are one record instead of four documents that drift apart.
The journey
Each step feeds the next. The gap analysis shapes the playbook, the playbook becomes the board, the board's work becomes the evidence. Nothing is asserted twice and nothing is re-entered.
The execution board
The board holds a three-level standard of truth, and it tells you which level every task sits at.
The app holds the evidence itself. Adopt a policy and its task completes on its own, because the audited document exists. Nobody ticked a box.
For governance work the app cannot watch, like an SLT mandate, the task carries the paper trail: a link to the minutes, a note of who signed, a date.
Plain completion still exists, for work where a tick is honestly enough. The board never dresses it up as more.
Tasks carry owners, due dates, and the plan's own dependencies. Regenerate the playbook later and the board syncs without touching your work. Export to Planner or Trello as CSV, or milestones to your calendar. And every task has a grounded assistant: ask what an SLT mandate should contain and the answer cites the regulator's clause.
The people
Hardware and policies do not change a classroom. Teachers do. The plan's largest thread is growing the staff who deliver it, and Edda runs that thread properly.
Staff capability is assessed with situational scenarios rather than self-ratings, so the baseline reflects what people can actually do, not how confident they feel.
The gaps become a sequenced CPD plan tied to your own curriculum and units, with sessions and coaching, because a plan alone transfers almost nothing.
Every teacher has a colleague in chat for planning, differentiation, and assessment, and every task on the board has a grounded assistant one click away. Development happens in the flow of work.
The policy register
Your regulator names the policies a school must hold. The register makes them a checklist with a workflow, not a folder of PDFs.
Upload a policy and it is audited clause by clause against the regulator's own text, scoped to that policy's remit. You get a score, per-requirement findings with the evidence quoted, and the gaps in plain language.
One click drafts a minimal revision that closes each finding, with every change traced to the finding it answers. Facts only the school knows become short questions you answer inline. Apply, and the real re-audit runs.
Missing a policy entirely? Start from a pre-authored template written against the same clauses the audit checks, localise the marked fields, and adopt.
A generated draft is never counted as a policy. Only the school's real, adopted, audited document moves the register, the readiness score, and the board.
Tool governance
The tool register is the school's own decisions, backed by vendor risk assessments made against the regulator's criteria, with the privacy policies and trust pages actually read and cited.
Tick the tools your school uses. Each carries its approval status, permitted year groups, AI settings, and whether a data processing agreement is in place.
Each tool's verdict comes from its real documents: the privacy policy, the terms, the trust centre, and the compliance PDFs they link to. Conditions for safe use are spelled out.
Any teacher can ask, in chat, whether a specific app is allowed with their class, and get the school's own answer: status, year groups, and the rules that apply.
Inspection readiness
The readiness view assembles itself from the real record: the audited policies, the governed tools, the assessments, and the board's evidenced governance work. Each line links to its artefact. The score moves only for reasons an inspector would accept, and the whole portfolio exports as a document.