/
New States SIG - 2024-07-24

New States SIG - 2024-07-24

Participants

First Name

Last Name

Organization

First Name

Last Name

Organization

Christine

Armstrong

Kansas State Department of Education

Julie

Cook

Kansas State Department of Education

Christopher

Fletcher

Kansas State Department of Education

Kyle

Lord

Kansas State Department of Education

Jennifer

Shaffer

Kansas State Department of Education

Steven

Mckee

Tennessee

Don

Modde

Utah State Board of Education

David

Kelley

Vermont Education Agency

James

Nadeau

Vermont Education Agency

Steven

Arnold

Ed-Fi Alliance

Kathleen

Browning

Ed-Fi Alliance

Sayee

Srinivasan

Ed-Fi Alliance

Support: Ann Su, Ed-Fi Alliance

WebEx Recording LINK https://edfi.webex.com/edfi/ldr.php?RCID=d7b97d7637f024a1daebc749715cab42

Meeting Material

Agenda and Notes

  • SEAs Invest in Adequate ODS Validation Tools

    • New Mexico provided challenges faced with data validation and lessons learned

      • Went into Production in 23-24 for Ed-Fi state reporting process

      • Lessons learned

        • Communicate with LEA that validation can be done daily

        • Help LEA learn/migrate from csv to JSON format for submission

    • 3 different tools for data validation

    • Move validation function earlier in data collection process

    • Provide data portal to LEA

    • Vermont • we use a percent change check, even before edfi, which not only identifies the count, but tells you were it is very different than the year before (10% changes triggers the validation, like edfi criteria) 

    • Typical recommended flow - Wisconsin example

    • Vermont • I am not sure that our organization would be prepared for 15 minute data update interval, but maybe likie you said it is about expereince with the edfi tools. 

      • Kathleen - find what works best for you. For the first live submission, recommend at least on a daily basis.

    • Make sure each vendor has adequate documentation and training for LEA

    • Vermont - API errors are great examples but easier to catch. In VT, it becomes any of the subset data validation. We have a 2nd level validation to identify missing data.

      • Kathleen - e.g. no attendance data for a whole school year

    • Utah - It’s a little different, for Finance side

      • Validation happens in local accounts - has to be a USB account

      • Kathleen - don’t overlook missing data; important to look during Pilot for first set of LEAs. Check with LEA amount of data sent.

      • Vermont - are they in a separate system for the local level?

        • Utah - we are enabling API to accept throughout the year, but mandate annual budget submission in July

        • Utah - we match legacy platform (csv file) against production database to identify any data gaps

    • TechDocs article on data validation

    • Vermont • I think the Data Validation topic is on point for where Vermont is currently at. 

    • Guidelines and Expectations for States Using Ed-Fi Standards - Ed-Fi Training - Ed-Fi TechDocs (atlassian.net)

      • Benefits for aligning to the data standards

      • Looking for feedbacks for this article

  • State Status

  • If using 5.3 API

    • 5.4 expect to release this Friday

  • Ed-Fi Summit

    • Reminder to register

Next meeting: August 21, 2024 

 

Related content