Content Comparison

Executive Summary

In 2024, the Ed-Fi Alliance analyzed conducted a comprehensive analysis of the usage and extension of its Unifying Data Model (Ed-Fi UDM, or Ed-Fi core model) among ) across state-wide implementations. The primary goal was to identify areas where deviations from the Ed-Fi state partners extended the model. These analyses UDM and create a more standardized model to reduce costs for vendors. This analysis provided valuable insights into the adoption patterns and information for the future iterations of the Ed-Fi UDM. Moreover, it has presented opportunities for Ed-Fi Alliance to work with state educational agencies (SEA) for more standardized use of Ed-Fi UDM. This standardization has highest importance for Ed-Fi Alliance for both strengthening its position as a standard body and reducing costs for vendors through economies of scale.The analysis revealed that states highlighted opportunities for greater standardization.

The study revealed that states often created extensions to address specific needs not covered by the core model. These extensions span included areas such as special education, student transportation, assessment administration, and career pathways. For exampleinstance, Texas has introduced a substantial number of numerous 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 included the need for detailed tracking of special education programs, student enrollment and attendance, and specific program participation data. States like Arizona, Delaware, and Georgia created extensions for school and section enrollments, discipline, and student program evaluations. Similarly, Indiana and Kansas focused on alternative education programs, curricular material assistance, and CTE instruction and certification. Minnesota and Nebraska addressed needs in course offerings, discipline, post-graduation activities, and crisis events.

To enhance alignment and interoperability, several recommendations have been were made to Ed-Fi states. These include included 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 The Ed-Fi Alliance an opportunity to consider also considered 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 extended the capacity of the Ed-Fi UDM in Data Standard v5.1 and v5.2 by including to include 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 Additionally, the Alliance initiated an overhaul of domain-specific best practices and business rules guidance, which will be continued continue in 2025 (see for examples: Enrollment domain, Alternative and supplemental services, Assessment registration, Student Attendance, Teaching and Learning).

Based on these findings, Moving forward, the Ed-Fi Alliance continues will continue to work with state educational agencies (SEAs) to improve alignment with the Ed-Fi UDM, update the model to reflect changing community needs, and create better opportunities for vendors to reduce implementation costs. Moving forward, Ed-Fi The Alliance will also conduct similar analyses and communications engage with its community. One improvement opportunity is working with community members to standardize specification documentation shared with Ed-Fi Alliance.