...
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Executive SummaryIn 2024, the Ed-Fi Alliance analyzed the usage of its Unifying Data Model (Ed-Fi UDM, or Ed-Fi core model) among state-wide implementations to understand its utilization and identify areas where Ed-Fi state partners extended the model. These analyses provided valuable insights into the adoption patterns and information for the future iterations of the Ed-Fi modelUDM. Moreover, it has presented opportunities for Ed-Fi Alliance to work with state educational agencies (SEA) to better aligned with the UDM. This alignment with the UDM and standardization of the for more standardized use of Ed-Fi model among different SEAs UDM. This standardization has highest importance for Ed-Fi not only because it will strengthen Alliance for both strengthening its position as a standard body also represents a better position for vendor community to extend the implementation of Ed-Fi in new states and a cost reduction because of the economics of scale.The analysis of the usage of the Ed-Fi UDM across various states reveals that each state has and reducing costs for vendors through economies of scale. The analysis revealed that states created extensions to address specific needs not covered by the core model. These extensions span a wide range of areas, including areas such as special education, student transportation, assessment administration, and career pathways. For example, Texas has introduced a substantial number of extensions, including 20 new entities and 491 attributes, covering areas like accountability data, special education, and finance. In contrast, states like South Carolina and Wisconsin have focused on more targeted extensions, such as assessment administration and immunization records. Common themes across states include the need for detailed tracking of special education programs, student enrollment and attendance, and specific program participation data. States like Arizona, Delaware, and Georgia have created extensions to capture data related to for school and section enrollments, discipline, and student program evaluations. Similarly, Indiana and Kansas have focused on areas like alternative education programs, curricular material assistance, and CTE instruction and certification. Minnesota and Nebraska have introduced extensions to address addressed needs in course offerings, discipline, post-graduation activities, and crisis events. To enhance alignment and interoperability, several recommendations have been made to Ed-Fi states. These include utilizing existing core attributes where possible, migrating to the newer versions of the Ed-Fi data model, and reviewing and updating definitions. These analyses have also given the Ed-Fi Alliance an opportunity to consider consolidating multiple entity extensions and collaborating across states to identify common extension attributes for potential inclusion in the core model. As a result, the Ed-Fi Alliance has implemented some updates in the Data Standard v5.1 and v5.2 by including student health, transportation, assessment registration and Section 504 programs. One other artifact of this analysis on the Ed-Fi Alliance side is the initiation of an overhaul of domain specific best practices and business rules guidance, which will be continued in 2025 (see for examples: Enrollment domain, Alternative and supplemental services, Assessment registration, Student Attendance, Teaching and Learning). Based on these findings, Ed-Fi Alliance has been continuously working continues to work with SEAs to improve their alignment with the Ed-Fi UDM, update Ed-Fi UDM to better reflect on changing needs of Ed-Fi community and the model to reflect changing community needs, and create better opportunities for vendor community members in reducing their cost of Ed-Fi implementation. For a higher achievement on these goal vendors to reduce implementation costs. Moving forward, Ed-Fi Alliance will continue conducting conduct similar analyses and communications with its community. One improvement opportunity we have seen for future iterations is working with Ed-Fi community members to form a uniformity for standardize specification documentation they share shared with the Ed-Fi Alliance. |
Introduction
...
The size of bubbles represents the API level extension dependency rate of each state. This rate is calculated by dividing the number of core entities each state uses by the total number of entities they had in their implementation of Ed-Fi Data Standard. The median number of extensions among states is calculated as 16 were median number of Ed-Fi API used was 36. As seen in the graph Michigan has the highest extension dependency rate while South Carolina has the smallest. The median extension dependency for these states has been calculated as 37%.
Ed-Fi Alliance team had the opportunity to share shared this visual with the community members in multiple occasions (Ed-Fi Summit 2024 was one of them) and many community members have shown interest to understand this finding better and shared with Ed-Fi Alliance about their intend to reduce their extension dependencies. While this visual is a great tool to see the general picture of Ed-Fi’s Fi Alliance’s finding for the usage of Ed-Fi UDM and dependency on extension among Ed-Fi partnering states more details Ed-Fi Data Standard team has found in these analyses are in the following section.
...
Arizona has leveraged extension mechanism to address specific state requirements in areas including school and section enrollments, course offerings, teachers as external provider, student needs for program services, student program evaluations, SpEd (Special Education) assessment outcomes, dropout recovery programs, school and program attendance, and discipline. The extension analysis evaluated current core options, potential better alternatives for extension, and extensions that Ed-Fi Alliance should consider incorporating into the its core data model.
Arizona extensions encompass the addition of seven new entities, one new association, and 124 new attributes. Specifics about the attribution extensions of current entities are as follows; two new attributes for the Calendar entity, four for CourseOffering, two for CourseTranscript, and three for DisciplineAction, the Program Evaluations domain is significantly expanded with four new entities, incorporating a total of 24 attributes. Additionally, the Section entity receives four new attributes and a new entity with seven attributes. The student dropout recovery program is bolstered by a new association and entity, adding four attributes. The StudentEducationOrganizationAssociation sees one new attribute, while a new entity for StudentNeed introduces seven attributes. Further extensions include three new attributes for StudentParentAssociation, 15 for StudentSchoolAssociation, one for StudentSchoolAttendanceEvent, five for StudentSectionAssociation, five for StudentSpecialEducationProgramAssociation, and four for StudentProgramAttendanceEvent. These updates are designed to enhance data granularity, improve interoperability, and support robust program evaluation and student tracking capabilities.
Several elements require re-examination of their definitions. For instance, the definition for SchoolID is erroneous, stating “A unique alpha-numeric code assigned to a student by the state,” which needs correction in elements like ClassPeriod.SchoolID and SectionExternalProviderTeacher.SchoolID. Additionally, some descriptors have cryptic definitions, such as “A unique identifier used as Primary Key, not derived from business logic, when acting as Foreign Key, references the parent table,” which should be replaced with the Ed-Fi Data Standard definitions for elements like StaffSectionAssociation.ClassroomPositionDescriptorID, StudentSchoolAssociation.EntryTypeDescriptorID, and StudentSchoolAssociation.ExitWithdrawTypeDescriptorID. The definition for StudentOtherName.OtherNameTypeDescriptorId, although aligned, is cryptic and would benefit from using the Ed-Fi definition.
The analysis also highlighted the need for Ed-Fi Alliance to review the current design of some data elements. Arizona provided alternative, equivalent, but better definitions for several Ed-Fi core model elements, leading to recommendations for updates to the Ed-Fi Data Standard definitions. For example, the definition for Section.AvailableCredits in Ed-Fi core model indicates that the unit of measurement is “Carnegie units,” but there is an indication that the industry may be moving away from this measure. Ed-Fi Alliance should monitor this trend and consider dropping the Carnegie unit reference in favor of specifying the units used by the state. The Ed-Fi data type for StaffSectionAssociation.PercentageContribution is DECIMAL (5,4), indicating it is a decimal between 0 and 1 (e.g., 0.3) rather than a percentage (e.g., 30%). Arizona’s definition clarified this, and the Ed-Fi definition needs to do the same. Additionally, the handling of event duration in StudentSchoolAttendanceEvent should be re-examined, considering practices in the field, and potentially simplified by collapsing the inline common StudentSchoolAttendanceEvent.AttendanceEvent structure.
...
With regard to StudentEducationOrganizationAssociation.Extension.CountyOfResidenceDescriptor, Ed-Fi has StudentEducationOrganizationAssociation.Address.NameOfCounty
With regard to StaffEdOrgEmploymentAssociation.Extension.AnnualSalary, Ed-Fi V5 Data Standard version v5 has a new attribute AnnualWage that should be used.
Based on these findings, Ed-Fi Alliance aims to work closely with the Georgia Department of Education to sustain data standards. Opportunities for collaboration include leveraging extension entities defined for Section 504 programs and special education events as common needs across states become evident.
...
Ed-Fi recommended the state to implement StudentSpecialEducationProgramEligibilityAssociation instead of extension by migrating to DS v5.x and was inspired by the StudentTransportation, ImmunizationRegistry and Assessment Registration related extensions the state has created while designing those updates in Data Standard v5.1 and v5.2.
Conclusion
The 2024 assessment of Ed-Fi Data Standard implementation across states provided valuable insights into how states use and extend the Ed-Fi Unifying Data Model (UDM). The findings highlight varying degrees of reliance on extensions, with some states heavily extending the core model to meet specific needs, while others primarily use the core model. This variability underscores the importance of understanding state-specific requirements and fostering collaboration to enhance Ed-Fi UDM’s capacity in covering more common use cases and having states aligned with Ed-Fi UDM.
This variability underscores the importance of understanding state-specific requirements and fostering collaboration to enhance data interoperability and support data-driven decision-making in education.
The analysis revealed that states like Arizona, Delaware, and Texas have created extensive extensions to address unique state requirements, ranging from special education and student transportation to medical data tracking and accountability data. Conversely, states like South Carolina and Nebraska have made more limited extensions, focusing on specific areas such as assessment administration and crisis information.
The Ed-Fi Alliance's commitment to continuous improvement and innovation is evident in its efforts to gather and analyze data from state-wide implementations systematically. By identifying common extension attributes and potential areas for standardization, the Ed-Fi Alliance aims to enhance the utility and relevance of the Ed-Fi UDM, ultimately contributing to more effective and efficient educational outcomes.
Moving forward, the Ed-Fi Alliance plans to work closely with state education agencies to sustain data standards and leverage common extension entities for broader adoption. Cross-state collaboration will be crucial in identifying specific common extension attributes for potential inclusion in the core model, thereby strengthening the overall ecosystem of educational data interoperability.
In conclusion, the 2024 assessment has provided a comprehensive understanding of the current state of Ed-Fi Data Standard implementation, highlighting both successes and areas for improvement. The Ed-Fi Alliance remains dedicated to supporting its community members by fostering a collaborative environment and continuously enhancing the Ed-Fi UDM to meet the evolving needs of educational agencies and technology providers.
👉 To see reports for each state use links below
...