| Table of Contents | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Findings from 2024 Extension Analysis
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Executive SummaryIn 2024, the Ed-Fi Alliance conducted a comprehensive analysis thorough assessment of the usage implementation and extension of its Unifying Data Model (Ed-Fi UDM, a.k.a. Ed-Fi core model) across state-wide implementations. The primary goal objective was to identify deviations from the Ed-Fi UDM and create promote a more standardized use of the model. This initiative is intended to help vendors reduce costs for vendors. This their implementation and operational costs, thereby simplifying their decision to expand the Ed-Fi community by partnering with additional states. The analysis provided valuable insights into adoption patterns trends and highlighted identified opportunities for greater standardization.The study revealed that states often created extensions to address specific needs not covered enhanced standardization. Ed-Fi Alliance produced detailed reports for each state, highlighting areas for better alignment with the core model and updating the Ed-Fi UDM to reflect common use cases identified through this analysis. In 2025, Ed-Fi Alliance plans to collaborate with all Ed-Fi states to discuss state-specific improvement opportunities and develop actions towards the standardized use of the Ed-Fi UDM. Furthermore, the Alliance will enhance the documentation of best practices in employing the Ed-Fi UDM. This method will fulfill the primary objective of lowering implementation and operational costs of vendors. State implementation analyses highlighted that Ed-Fi states frequently developed extensions to meet specific requirements not addressed by the core model. These extensions included encompassed areas such as special education, student transportation, assessment administration, and career pathways. For instanceexample, Texas introduced numerous extensions, including 20 new entities and 491 attributes, covering accountability data, special education, and finance. In contrastConversely, states like South Carolina and Wisconsin focused concentrated on more targeted extensions, such as assessment administration and immunization records. Common themes across states included the need for some detailed tracking of special education programs, student enrollment and attendance, and specific program participation dataattendance. 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 These extensions analyzed carefully and recommendations were made to Ed-Fi states . These included for better alignment with the Ed-Fi UDM. Some of these recommendations are about utilizing existing core attributes where possible, migrating to newer versions of the Ed-Fi data model, and reviewing and updating definitions. The Ed-Fi Alliance also considered explored consolidating multiple entity extensions and collaborating across with states to identify common extension attributes for potential inclusion in the commonalities for core model inclusion. As a result, the Ed-Fi Alliance extended the capacity of the Ed-Fi UDM in Data Standard v5.1 and v5.2 to include student health, transportation, assessment registration, and Section 504 programs. Additionally, the Alliance initiated an overhaul of domain-specific best practices and business rules guidance, which will continue in 2025 (see for examples: Enrollment domain, Alternative and supplemental services, Assessment registration, Student Attendance, Teaching and Learning). Moving forward, the Ed-Fi Alliance 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. The Alliance will also conduct similar analyses and engage with its community to standardize specification documentation shared with Ed-Fi Alliance.to improve their alignment with the Ed-Fi UDM, update the model to reflect on common usage of extension, and extend the documentation of domain specific best practice guidance. With these strategies, Ed-Fi Alliance intends to provide best opportunities for vendors to reduce their Ed-Fi implementation and operation costs. State Reports: Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin |
Introduction
In 2024, the Ed-Fi Alliance conducted an analysis of the usage of its Unifying Data Model (Ed-Fi UDM) among states with statewide implementations, with the primary goal of helping its vendor community to have better opportunities in reducing costs of using Ed-Fi Data Standard. By understanding how the Ed-Fi UDM was being used and identifying areas where extensions were needed, the Ed-Fi Alliance aimed to streamline the model and create economies of scale. This effort supports the Alliance's commitment to creating a unifying data model that meets the needs of educational agencies (SEA, ESA, LEA) while simplifying the process for educational technology providers to extend their Ed-Fi Data Standard implementations.
Additionally, this work sought to uncover patterns and trends in the adoption and adaptation of the Ed-Fi UDM, offering valuable insights into the challenges and successes experienced by various stakeholders. These insights are crucial for informing future adaptations and implementations of the Ed-Fi model. By fostering a collaborative environment where data from statewide implementations is systematically gathered and analyzed, the Ed-Fi Alliance demonstrates its dedication to continuous improvement and innovation. This approach not only enhances the utility and relevance of the Ed-Fi UDM but also strengthens the overall ecosystem of educational data interoperability, ultimately contributing to more effective and efficient educational outcomes.
Summary of Findings
Analyses of the usage of Ed-Fi UDM and extensions created by states highlighted that there are varying degrees to which states extend the Ed-Fi core model to meet their specific needs. While some states rely heavily on extensions, others make extensive use of the core model. Understanding these metrics helps to identify areas for potential collaboration and standardization across states, ultimately enhancing data interoperability and supporting data-driven decision-making in education.
...
Ed-Fi Alliance team 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 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.
State by State Extension Analysis Findings
Arizona
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 its core data model.
...
Based on these findings, Ed-Fi Alliance aims to work closely with the Arizona Department of Education to sustain data standards. Opportunities for collaboration include leveraging extension entities for external provider teachers, student program services, SpEd assessment outcomes, and dropout recovery programs as common needs across states become evident. Cross-state collaboration is recommended to identify specific common extension attributes for potential inclusion in the core model, enhancing data interoperability and supporting data-driven decision-making across states.
Delaware
Delaware has extensively utilized the extension mechanism. Our analysis indicates that approximately 40% of Delaware's data elements in their implementation Ed-Fi model were state-created extensions. These extensions cover areas such as student enrollment data, course offerings and grades, teaching and learning, student transportation, special education and other IDEA-mandated programs, restraint and seclusion involving students and staff, discipline, CTE instruction, and student medical records.
...
Since the data collection for this analysis was conducted in early 2024, some of the extensions observed in Delaware have already been incorporated into the Ed-Fi UDM by the time this report was created. These updates include extensions in assessment registration, student transportation, Section 504, and student immunization, which account for about 15% of the extensions.
Georgia
The Georgia extensions introduce two new entities, two new associations, and 110 new attributes to the Ed-Fi data model. The new entity LocalEducationAgencyStatistics provides summary counts for psychological cases and private or home-schooled students, with attributes such as LocalEducationAgencyId, and counts for private or home-schooled students and psychological services evaluations. The SchoolStatistics entity offers summary counts for behavior incidents, social work cases, interventions, and referrals, with attributes including DualEnrollmentAwarenessGrade10, DualEnrollmentAwarenessGrade11, and various descriptors for school programs and services.
...
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.
Indiana
Indiana has utilized the Ed-Fi extension mechanism to address specific state requirements where the core data standard did not suffice. These areas include additional programs for alternative education and curricular material assistance, noncertified and other personnel not categorized as staff, assessment accommodations, school status as a Choice or Freeway school, staff employment contracts, special education, and discipline. The extension analysis evaluated current core options, potential better alternatives for extension, and extensions that Ed-Fi should consider incorporating into the core data model.
...
Extensions of the StudentSpecialEducationProgramAssociation are typical across the states, as needs change and evolve in this domain. Collaboration across states should be used to keep this domain up to date with community needs.
Kansas
The Kansas extensions comprise one new entity, two new associations, and 49 new attributes. Key updates include attribute extensions to the StudentEducationOrganizationAssociation entity, adding fields for district of residence, immigrant student status, military-connected student descriptor, neglected student status, and CTE-related attributes such as certification dates and earned certifications. Additionally, transportation-related attributes were added to track miles transported, non-resident transportation, and transportation FTE.
...
The analysis also highlighted the need to revisit the definition for StudentAssessmentAccommodation.AccommodationDescriptor to clarify its use for accommodations for disabilities. Based on these findings, Ed-Fi aims to work closely with the Kansas State Department of Education (KSED) to sustain data standards. Opportunities for collaboration include advising Kansas as they expand their use of the data model, such as with StudentAcademicRecord and CourseTranscript, and leveraging extensions defined for language instruction, CTE certifications, and transportation as common needs across states become evident. Cross-state collaboration is recommended to identify specific common extension attributes for potential inclusion in the core model, enhancing data interoperability and supporting data-driven decision-making across states.
Minnesota
The Minnesota extensions introduce significant additions to the data model, encompassing 7 new entities, 12 new associations, and 241 new attributes. These extensions span various entities, including Calendar, ClassPeriod, Course, CourseOffering, DisciplineAction, DisciplineIncident, Grade, LocalEducationAgency, Parent, School, Section, Session, and Student-related associations.
...
Based on these findings, Ed-Fi aims to work closely with the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) to sustain data standards. Opportunities for collaboration include investigating the inclusion of discipline extensions and student assessment and assessment administration extensions into the Ed-Fi core, considering new StudentProgramAssociation extensions for federal programs, and identifying specific common extension attributes for potential inclusion in the core model through cross-state collaboration. This collaboration aims to enhance data interoperability and support data-driven decision-making across states.
Nebraska
The Nebraska extensions introduce three new entities, one new association, and 34 new attributes to the data model. These extensions are designed to enhance the recording and analysis of student crisis information, post-graduation activities, assessment administration, and various program associations.
...
The analysis also highlighted the need for Ed-Fi to review the current design of some data elements. It is recommended to investigate model changes to capture important enrollment aggregate data, such as StudentSchoolAssociation.StudentDaysEnrolled. Additionally, there are 13 core data elements where the Nebraska definition is more precise and should be considered for adoption as the Ed-Fi definition. These elements include Parent.Addresses.AddressTypeDescriptor, StudentEducationOrganizationAssociation.Addresses.AddressTypeDescriptor, StudentEducationOrganizationAssociation.Languages.LanguageDescriptor, StudentEducationOrganizationAssociation.StudentIdentificationCodes.StudentIdentificationSystemDescriptor, StudentEducationOrganizationAssociation.Telephones.TelephoneNumberTypeDescriptor, Parent.Telephones.TelephoneNumberTypeDescriptor, Course.AcademicSubjectDescriptor, Course.CourseCode, StudentSchoolAssociation.CalendarReference, StudentSchoolAssociation.ExitWithdrawTypeDescriptor, StudentSchoolAttendanceEvent.AttendanceEventCategoryDescriptor, StudentSectionAttendanceEvent.AttendanceEventCategoryDescriptor, StudentSchoolAttendanceEvent.EventDuration, and StaffEducationOrganizationContactAssociation.Telephones.TextMessageCapabilityIndicator.
South Carolina
The South Carolina extensions introduce two new entities and 18 attributes, focusing on an Assessment Roster extension developed in collaboration with Ed-Fi and other states. This extension aims to capture and communicate data regarding the expectation that a student will take an assessment.
...
The StudentAssessmentRegistration entity is designed to link students to their assessment administrations. It includes attributes such as AssessmentAdministrationReference, StudentEducationOrganizationAssociationReference, TestingEducationOrganizationReference, and ReportingEducationOrganizationReference. Additionally, it features a PlatformTypeDescriptor and a common AssessmentCustomization attribute set, which includes IdentificationCode and CustomizationValue.
These findings reveal that South Carolina created a limited number of extensions to the Ed-Fi core for assessment administration as part of a collaboration defining assessment rosters. South Carolina is recommended to track Ed-Fi activities if it decides to bring the extension into core.
Texas
The Texas extensions introduce numerous new entities, associations, and attributes to the Ed-Fi data model, addressing specific state needs not fully met by the core data standard. These extensions cover areas such as accountability data, summary attendance, student applications for enrollment, special education eligibility, student academic records, prior year leaver information, and finance.
...
Analysis across states may identify specific common extension attributes for consideration into core where cross-state collaboration is recommended.
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin extensions introduce two new entities, one new association, and 72 attributes, significantly enhancing the data model. The new entities and association account for roughly half of the attribute extensions.
...
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 primary goal was to reduce costs for vendors by identifying deviations from the core model and creating a more standardized approach.
...