SIS SIG - Meeting 22 - 2026.4.22

Date: April 21, 2026
Focus: Course Transcript Modeling, Validation Friction, and Certification Modernization
Slides:

Participants

Agenda

1. Course Transcript & Student Academic Record Data Modeling

(Includes multiple section enrollment and longitudinal considerations)

Overview

The group focused on challenges in representing student academic records—particularly when students are enrolled in multiple sections of the same course—and how current Ed-Fi course transcript modeling creates operational and reporting issues for SIS vendors and states. The discussion surfaced trade-offs between data integrity, operational simplicity, transfer credit handling, and backward compatibility as the community looks toward making changes for Ed‑Fi 7.0.

Discussion Areas

• Multiple Section Enrollment as a Core Modeling Gap

  • Presented on persistent issues when a student is enrolled in more than one section of the same course simultaneously.

  • The current course transcript entity does not include section as part of the primary key, making it difficult to represent these scenarios cleanly.

  • States like Indiana and Texas are already requesting section-level differentiation, often via custom extensions.

• Current Workarounds Used in the Field

  • Some states and vendors manufacture mini-terms (e.g., “Mini Term 1 / Mini Term 2”) to distinguish sections within the same semester.

  • Others create separate course offerings (e.g., “English 1A / English 1B”) that share the same state course code.

  • These approaches work functionally but introduce complexity and inconsistency across implementations.

• Proposed Data Model Changes and Trade-offs

  • Adding section identifiers to the course transcript key would solve the immediate problem but creates challenges for:

    • Transfer credits that do not have section context.

    • Courses taken outside the reporting school.

    • Manually edited transcripts that lack consistent metadata.

  • An alternative discussed was introducing a new string-based identifier to distinguish transcript records without forcing artificial sections or terms.

  • The group acknowledged that no option is perfect, and that trade-offs between purity, flexibility, and operational burden must be explicitly managed.

• Transfer Credits and Longitudinal Records

  • Transfer courses often arrive without section identifiers and are handled inconsistently across SIS platforms.

  • Most SIS vendors currently send only the current academic year’s transcript data, while states aggregate multi-year records.

  • Some states are beginning to request multi-year transcript data, raising questions about how certification and data standards should evolve.

Actions / Next Steps

• Schedule targeted working sessions with SIS vendors and state partners to converge on a recommended approach.

• Aim to finalize a concise, implementable recommendation within 1–2 weeks to inform the Ed‑Fi 7.0 data model.

• Clearly identify whether proposed changes constitute a breaking change and how early adopters (potentially 2026–27) might implement them.

• Continue to align expectations around state vs. vendor responsibility for longitudinal transcript aggregation.

2. Validation & Operational Friction

(Surfaced pain point)

Overview

While no new systemic blockers were raised, vendors highlighted validation error communication as an ongoing operational pain point. The issue is less about the existence of rules and more about how clearly errors are surfaced, explained, and resolved across vendors, states, and support teams.

Discussion Areas

• Communication Gaps Around Validation Errors

  • State support teams often articulate business rules, but not the specific Ed‑Fi resource elements or fields driving errors.

  • Vendors reported spending significant time interpreting logs, escalating tickets, and relaying information between districts and state agencies.

  • This “middleman” role increases resolution time and frustration for all parties.

• Role of the Ed‑Fi Validations API

  • There was strong support for broader adoption of the Ed‑Fi Validations API to provide:

    • Clear, actionable error messages.

    • Direct mapping to specific resource elements.

    • Reduced ambiguity during troubleshooting.

  • Vendors expressed optimism that better validation tooling could materially reduce operational burden for LEAs and vendors alike.

• Manual Transcript Editing as a Risk Area

  • Manual edits to transcripts often introduce inconsistencies (incorrect course numbers, missing sections) that later trigger validation failures.

  • This reinforces the need for clearer guidance, better tooling, and more transparent validation feedback loops.

Actions / Next Steps

• Explore incorporating use of the Validations API into certification expectations or endorsements.

• Investigate ways to encourage or recognize vendors that provide clear, element-level validation feedback.

• Share guidance and examples that translate validation errors into business-meaningful messages for vendors and districts.

3. Certification Process Improvements & Strategy

Overview

The group reviewed consistent feedback from Tech Congress and SIS vendors that the current certification process. The discussion focused on evolving certification into a clearer signal of real-world capability while reducing friction through automation.

Discussion Areas

• Current Challenges with Certification

  • Certification timelines are long and unpredictable, with late-stage surprises undermining confidence.

  • Vendors and customers are often unclear on what certification actually guarantees.

  • Certification may be misinterpreted as a blanket endorsement for all Ed‑Fi use cases, even when scope is limited.

  • Manual sandbox provisioning and coordination slow progress.

• Vision for a Modernized Certification Model

  • Automation and self‑service testing to allow vendors to certify on their own schedules.

  • Clear articulation of “certified for what, exactly”, aligned to real use cases.

  • Maintain a prescriptive core certification, with optional endorsements for additional domains or capabilities.

  • Avoiding overly granular certification tiers that would be difficult to maintain.

• Market Signaling and Trust

  • Certification should reflect:

    • What vendors actually ship.

    • What districts actively use.

    • What states meaningfully request.

  • Tiering or endorsements were explored as a way to distinguish base compliance from advanced or optional functionality without fragmenting the market.

Actions / Next Steps

• Nate and Robert will continue refining certification goals around automation, clarity, and market relevance.

• Review certification scenarios related to student academic record submission and cumulative records to ensure alignment with field practices.

• Report progress and proposed changes in the next monthly SIS SIG meeting.

• Continue gathering vendor and state feedback to validate assumptions before implementation.

Community Coordination & Follow-Up

Actions / Next Steps

• Tech Congress recap materials, participation forms, and relevant links

  • Tech Congress 2026 - Ed-Fi Resource Center - Ed-Fi Confluence

  • Sign up form to follow working groups and conversations

• SIG members are encouraged to join and actively participate in:

  • Data Standard workgroups.

  • The Special Education SIG.

  • Identity and admin tooling discussions.

• Invite vendors and states to submit current friction points or direct outreach to help prioritize future agendas.