MSP SIG - Meeting 18 - 2023-12-12

Owned by Eric Jansson
Last updated: Dec 14, 2023
2 min read

Participants

 Click here to expand...


First NameLast NameOrganization
KathleenBrowningEd-Fi Alliance
DavidCintronEdWire
RoshDhanawadeEducation Analytics
StephenFuquaEd-Fi Alliance
NateGandomiEd-Fi Alliance
Jean-FrancoisGuertinEdWire
EricJanssonEd-Fi Alliance
GeoffMcElhanonEdufied
EsharaMondalEducation Analytics
MarkTenHoorEducation Analytics
MustafaYilmazEd-Fi Alliance

Support: Ann Su, Ed-Fi Alliance

Agenda

  1. Continued discussion on Tech Roadmap with a focus on ODS/API roadmap and Tanager project
  2. Discussion of assessment integration strategies (see materials linked on MSP SIG - Meeting 17 - 2023-11-28)

Notes

Future API roadmap

  • With ODS/API 5.x - update is a little more challenge due to process, not build environment in API 5
  • Question: why do agencies want to run 5.3 when there is 7.x
    • Answer: because of breaking changes to DS 3.3
  • Observation: the breaks for SIS vendors are very tiny; assessment has moderate breaks. One option is to get with those who want the 5.x and get into the details. For a SIS system, little changed from DS 3.3 to 4 - see https://edfi.atlassian.net/wiki/display/EFDS4X/What%27s+New+-+v4.0
  • There is also the case of SEAs needing to support past school years
  • We might do a branch of 5.4 without a formal release?
  • How much work to get DS 3.3 on to ODS/API 7.x?
    • conceptually, for features we added, there are some additions to the model, version min max year value data elements
    • Can look into putting DS 3.3 into 7.x
  • Have states that have this problem, make a list of states that are affected, do analysis with them, see if they are affected
    • Example of SC cited: When we analyzed ds4.0, SC was going to not be affected by any of the breaking changes

Programming language
Some MSPs use C-Sharp, others typescript

C-sharp is OK as long as solution can be containerized

Assessment integration solutions

See deck. MSPs were asked to validate the expense of manual assessment integration and limits of ELT/ETL. They did this and cited these issues:

  • manual, so more expensive
  • also semantics of reports can change, and even mild shifts take time to investigate
  •  sometimes there can be multiple shifts in a year (4 was cited in one case)

Comment: Even when data is provided in Ed-Fi by a vendor, there is still benefit to 

Lessons in using RFP language

  • get specific on how (look into SC examples)
  • ask for unlocks for the entire state - both LEA and SEA (some comments that SEAs may be limited in their power to request this)
  • watch out for differences in products portfolios and in different products - clarity there is important

Next meeting

  • Go down the list of vendors who are highest demand (could possibly do this via a web form)
  • Go over ideas of how to sell the concept to the assessment vendors better




Talk about how Ed-Fi makes the case

Materials

Notes


Next Meeting: