Participation
| Members | Support |
|---|---|
Tricia Farris LaCole Foots Lori Ludwick Luis Machuca Cari Reddick Sarah Kolbe Tiffany Fernandez Jordan Mader | Steven Arnold Nancy Smith Chris Moffatt |
The meeting is scheduled via WebEx 2019-08-06 12:00 pm-1:00 pm CT.
Agenda/Meeting Minutes:
Meeting Slides::TPDM Working Group 2019-08-06.pptx
Welcome and introduction
Brief discussion of what the subgroup is responsible for – statement of purpose
Ticket Review and discussion
Next steps and meeting date/time
Comments or feedback from last meeting: None
Discussion
Released version 3.0.5 on 8/5/2019 with these two issues
Issue Planned for Development
- Release Planned for October (version number not determined yet but will be aligned to Ed-Fi ODS/API v3.2 / Data Standard v3.1)
- TPDMX-54 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- TPDMX-57 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- TPDMX-45 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- TPDMX-21 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- TPDMX-61 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- TPDMX-10 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- TPDMX-33 - Getting issue details... STATUS
No questions or comments on above issues
Issue for Group Discussion
-
TPDMX-69
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
- Relay asked that each Survey Question Response have the ability to target Teacher Candidate or Staff member
- Model Review Committee: preference that the section (group of Questions) makes more sense as target rather than each individual question. What if there is more that 1 question about a Teacher Candidate or Staff member
- Discussion:
- likes idea about grouping – is likely that a section will be about a person
- are there individual questions that need to be connected to an individual target? About different people – 10 questions targeted to a different person
- don’t have scenario like that – no targeted to 1 particular person, don’t yet have a section. Do separate survey for each TC that they are evaluating. Single question is a small section anyway
- not really but can we use it to tag not a person but to align it to an specific standard for accreditation
- can use it for both
- echo and have that need too. It is a separate need.
- Each task is related to a standard… have it on an assessment, but have survey items that target a specific standard of learning. It is at the item. No 2 items aligned to same standard. Do alignment on item by item basis
- Don’t have license, so email SAA to get ticket submitted for CSU
- need a ticket in Tracker to bring this up (from both UTRGV and CSU)
- Tk20 has that capability
- Resolution: SAA Will create a new ticket(s) showing community decision that Survey Question Sections have ability to target Teacher Candidates and Staff members. SK will send information for a new ticket linking Survey Questions to learning standards. LM will submit a ticket about linking Survey Questions to learning standards.
- TPDMX-58 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- Relay/Jordan – have reference data – other educators you compare teacher’s to – can load other teachers in – load in all data about ALL teachers in sample
- Discussion:
- is the Ed-Fi ODS the appropriate place to store this. It’s intended for granular data and linked to individual. Could it be stored in a downstream system. We generally try not to store aggregate data. What are benefits to put in ODS.
- individual Teacher Candidate can have aggregate student growth, can have an individual student growth measure. Does Relay receive anonymized at individual level or is it aggregate or average for a group of teachers?
- doesn’t make ton of sense to load for other teachers as long as know how to use the data ODS has. Doesn’t make sense for TPP to have that data for individual . Just compare TC to average growth for a group. Would a state have similar issue – have growth for all teachers but have average for a subset. Idea is that there is an individual score for teachers but know nothing else about the teachers – is it helpful to store.
- keep open to see how to deal with
- Some subset with Relay, UPD and EA are discussing and will have offline discussion
- Resolution: Ticket will be moved to backlog for re-examination as new information surfaces
- TPDMX-59 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- Add undergrad GPA, majors, minors, etc to Teacher Candidate
- Not big in original use cases
- Discussion:
- do use info to understand students and their needs, use at beginning of semester to share with faculty
- what is use case? Is it recruitment, target math majors – look at profiles, target other majors/minors or focus on one. To see what high needs are to support students – improve, grow, graduate.
- do you expect to see it in dashboards or how used in analyses?
- definitely in dashboard.
- incoming SAT/ACT/GPA – pre-program scores – not a current place now for major/minor. Easy to add if meaningful.
- question: Lori, do we map all of those already? GPA, Test Scores, etc
- We did for UTRGV, but did a work around for GPA, not in current model for applicant
- in favor of adding GPA complex type for applicant
- post meeting note: related ticket: TPDMX-34 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- What is exhaustive list that would be important
- GPA, major, minor
- Can capture scores like ACT, SAT
- What other data elements?
- TF: GPA, major, minor
- TF: keep final undergrad GPA, not semester
- LL: need by major or overall? How granular?
- TF: don’t need granular – just final GPA
- Other programs? No response – Sarah = nothing needed, Luis – only use those GPA, test scores and grades
- major/minor – is that open-ended comment field?
- have ways to handle – discussing with Ed and Model Review Committee
- Probably more discussion needed before moving forward
- Resolution: further discussion in both Model Review and this group
Next Steps:
- Next TPDM Work Group meetings on 8/29 and 9/29
- Model review – 8/12
- Need more discussion before 8/29 or after?
- would like to get group together before 8/29, but wants input from subgroup
- send a poll and proposed agenda
- wants to meet prior to 8/29
- send tickets out ahead of time for review