MSP SIG - Meeting 12 - 2023-09-12
- Eric Jansson
- Ann Su (Unlicensed)
Owned by Eric Jansson
Participants
Click here to expand...
First Name | Last Name | Organization |
Marcos | Alcozer | Alcozer Consulting |
Emilio | Baez | Edufied |
Kathleen | Browning | Ed-Fi Alliance |
Sean | Casey | Ed-Fi Alliance |
Rosh | Dhanawade | Education Analytics |
Jean-Francois | Guertin | EdWire |
Jason | Hoekstra | Ed-Fi Alliance |
Eric | Jansson | Ed-Fi Alliance |
Douglas | Loyo | Edufied |
Geoff | McElhanon | Edufied |
Andrew | Rice | Education Analytics |
Mark | TenHoor | Education Analytics |
Mustafa | Yilmaz | Ed-Fi Alliance |
Support: Ann Su, Ed-Fi Alliance
Agenda
- Feedback on SEA Overview and Implementation playbook (Eric)
- Question on how to handle availability statements connected to badges and certification (David Clements)
- Information sharing re adoption (Sean Casey)
- MSP Services best practices (Jeff)
Materials
- 2023 SEA Ed-Fi Overview and Implementation Playbook.pdf
- Services best practices - - For SIG.pdf
- Adoption Data for MSPs.pdf
Notes
Covered items 1 and 3 and held items 2 and 4 for a later meeting
Feedback on SEA Overview and Implementation playbook
key notes
- Should mention agility - these are large complex projects prone to unforeseen issues
- Descriptor mappings is very confusing; capability of the SIS to do this is uneven as well
- Agencies often underestimate vendor engagement
- the "bully pulpit" is not as strong as they believe it is
- changes to state specifications can have massive downstream impacts that put LEAs and vendors in a very bad situation, because states are not accustomed to factoring in a software development cycle that takes time – unlike with CSV and file-based submissions, change cannot happen quick with an API client
- Maybe add a common issues section to reflect places where SEAs are often surprise
- Should add elements about upgrades and follow-through
- Perhaps something about the role of standards
- Alliance go forth with this for LEA collaboratives/ESAs? Yes
- Generally there are RFPs to "solve all data problems" and those rarely work well - how can we guard against those?
- Format feedback?
- Big bureaucracies only work through PowerPoint
- Having a high-level view is important
Information sharing re adoption
- Quarterly meeting format with a quid pro quo feel
- Anonymization of pipeline may be important
- Provide leads? Yes, might be interesting, need to think about this
- A slide with all numbers for the SEAs, collabs, and district adoption can help push trust in the maturity of the standard.