SIS SIG - Meeting 23 - 2026.5.19

SIS SIG - Meeting 23 - 2026.5.19

Date: May 19, 2026
Focus: Focus: Data Standard Updates, Certification Workflow, Intervention Certification
Slides:

Participants

First Name

Last Name

Organization

Nathan

Gandomi

Ed-Fi Alliance

Maria

Ragone

Ed-Fi Alliance

Robert

Hunter

Ed-Fi Alliance

Josh

Bergman

Skyward

Jen

Sauro

Infinite Campus

Oscar

Ortega

Edupoint

Sam

Hodge

Focus

Turab

Fatakdawala

PowerSchool

Agenda

 

1. Data Standard 6.1 Updates & 7.0 Roadmap

Overview

The group reviewed recently released Data Standard v6.1 updates and early direction for v7.0, with a focus on reducing state extensions, improving core model usability, and aligning with real-world adoption patterns across states.

Discussion Areas

  • Data Standard 6.1 Changes and Intent

    • New AddressCharacteristic added to address gaps (e.g., primary, validated address indicators).

    • Introduction of ResponsibleEdOrg reference in SEORA to address widespread state extensions for responsibility/residency modeling.

    • Deprecation of ResidencyDescriptor in StudentSchoolAssociation to consolidate responsibility modeling into SEORA.

    • Early-access additions in special education and provider domains intended to evolve with community feedback.v

  • Reducing State Extensions and Complexity

    • Many states have implemented similar extensions for residency and responsibility; v6.1 aims to standardize these patterns.

    • Partial state adoption is expected—some states will continue extensions due to funding and reporting requirements.

    • Goal: reduce implementation burden and duplicated logic across SIS vendors.

  • Model Complexity vs. State Reality (Special Education Example)

    • Feedback that some new models (e.g., SEDM) may be more detailed than most states currently require.

    • States differ significantly in how much data they collect and report.

    • Need for clearer guidance on when to use which model vs. forcing a single approach.

  • Documentation & Developer Experience Improvements

    • ER diagrams converted to Mermaid format, improving accessibility and enabling tooling/automation use.

    • Cleanup of unused descriptors and improved documentation structure to reduce confusion.

  • 7.0 Roadmap Priorities

    • Strong signals from community and Tech Congress:

      • Discipline and P20W/CTE are top priorities.

      • Intervention and assessment domains continue to evolve.

    • Early work underway on:

      • Course transcript model changes

      • Discipline enhancements (e.g., incident structure, action associations)

      • Intervention domain improvements

Actions / Next Steps

  • Gather state-level input on new models (especially SEDM suitability vs. real reporting needs).

  • Continue driving state commitments to adopt 6.1 changes where they reduce extension burden.

  • Incorporate SIS vendor feedback into 7.0 prioritization, particularly discipline and transcript modeling.

  • Clarify model usage guidance (when to use advanced vs. simplified models).


2. Certification Workflow & Self-Service Model

Overview

The group reviewed a proposed self-service, Ed‑Fi-hosted certification workflow, aimed at reducing manual effort, increasing speed, and improving predictability through automation and centralized tooling.

Discussion Areas

  • Core Shift to Hosted Certification Platform

    • Admin App v4 is repositioned as an Ed‑Fi-hosted certification platform, not a tool vendors must self-host.

    • Ed-Fi will manage:

      • Platform hosting

      • ODS instances

      • Vendor onboarding environment

    • Vendors interact through a unified interface to register, test, and complete certification.

  • End-to-End Workflow Simplification

    • Vendors can:

      • Register applications

      • Generate credentials

      • Run certification scenarios directly in a browser

    • Removes current friction from:

      • Manual sandbox provisioning

      • Email-based coordination

      • Fragmented testing workflows

  • Automation + Human Review Model

    • Automated scenario validation provides immediate feedback.

    • A final human review step remains for quality control and registry updates.

    • Goal is to keep human involvement where it adds value, while eliminating repetitive tasks.

  • Certification Speed & Flexibility Improvements

    • Vendors could potentially complete certification on their own schedule, even within the same day if ready.

    • Improved feedback loops reduce delays and uncertainty.

  • State-Level Certification Considerations

    • Future goal: enable states/MSPs to use the same platform pattern for their own certifications.

    • Not part of initial scope (“phase one”), but recognized as valuable for alignment.

Actions / Next Steps

  • Continue development of Admin App v4 hosted certification platform.

  • Provide early preview / first-look experience in upcoming SIG meetings.

  • Target initial release by end of year, with iterative refinement.

  • Explore longer-term alignment with state-level certification workflows, building on shared platform patterns.


3. Intervention / MTSS Certification

Overview

The group reviewed draft Intervention (MTSS) certification use cases and data requirements, with a focus on validating whether the proposed model aligns with SIS workflows and state expectations.

Discussion Areas

  • Baseline Use Cases for Certification

    • Intervention catalog management

    • Student assignment to interventions

    • Tracking delivery and dosage

    • Associating staff to delivery

    • Recording participation/engagement

  • Key Misalignment: “Attendance” vs. Real SIS Modeling

    • SIS vendors consistently noted that intervention attendance is not modeled like course attendance.

    • In practice:

      • Interventions are treated as programs/services, not courses.

      • Tracking is focused on duration (minutes/hours) rather than attendance events.

      • Event-based granularity (dates, categories like excused/unexcused) is often unnecessary.

  • Concerns with Current Data Model Requirements

    • Required fields such as event date and attendance category may not align with real implementations.

    • Risk of forcing SIS vendors into unnatural or “ugly” configurations (e.g., creating fake courses).

    • Need to avoid conflicting with core attendance models.

  • Recommended Direction from Vendors

    • Emphasize duration-based tracking over event-based attendance.

    • Treat interventions as program participation, not attendance events.

    • Allow flexibility to support varying district and state practices.

  • Differences Between SIS and Intervention Providers

    • Intervention product vendors often track granular session-level data (dates, engagement metrics).

    • SIS vendors focus on aggregate reporting aligned to state requirements.

    • Certification must reconcile these differences without over-constraining either side.

Actions / Next Steps

  • Conduct follow-up sessions with SIS vendors to better understand real intervention workflows (e.g., demo sessions).

  • Validate requirements with state agencies to determine required vs. optional granularity.

  • Adjust certification scope to balance:

    • SIS practical implementation

    • State reporting needs

    • Intervention provider capabilities

  • Continue open comment period and refine toward a v1 (MVP) certification scope.


4. Emerging Technical Pain Point: API & Data Management Challenges

Overview

A new technical friction point was raised related to delete operations, dependency handling, and API error feedback, highlighting challenges in maintaining data integrity and debugging issues in production systems.

See Include dependent items list in 409 failures when deleting · Issue #94 · Ed-Fi-Alliance-OSS/Ed-Fi-Technology-Roadmap

Discussion Areas

  • Cascade Delete and Dependency Visibility Challenges

    • Vendors encounter issues when deleting records that have hidden dependencies (e.g., grades tied to associations).

    • Current API error messages do not provide enough detail to identify dependent records.

    • Lack of visibility makes troubleshooting slow and error-prone.

  • Logging and Recovery Limitations

    • In some cases, SIS systems lose reference data needed to resolve issues (e.g., missing payloads or IDs).

    • This creates situations where:

      • The ODS enforces integrity constraints

      • But vendors cannot identify or resolve the dependency chain

  • Potential Improvements Suggested

    • Include dependent record identifiers in error messages

    • Provide a way to query dependency relationships for a resource

    • Improve validation around unsupported filter parameters (avoid unintended bulk operations)

  • Broader Architectural Question

    • Where responsibility should lie between:

      • SIS application logic

      • Ed‑Fi API / ODS integrity enforcement

    • Ongoing tension between flexibility and safety (e.g., avoiding dangerous cascade deletes).

Actions / Next Steps


Community Coordination & Follow-Up

Actions / Next Steps

  • Course transcript modeling discussion will continue in June with proposed solutions.

  • Share detailed intervention certification requirements for broader review and feedback.

  • Coordinate follow-up discussions across:

    • Data Standard workgroups

    • TAG (technical issues)

    • Certification working sessions


Topics for Next Meeting

  • Course transcript & student academic record modeling (continued)

  • Intervention certification refinement

  • API / validation and technical workflow improvements