GAT Meeting - 2019-2-20

Owned by Chris Moffatt (Deactivated)
Last updated: Apr 24, 2019

The meeting was hosted by Tulsa Public Schools from 9 am to 12:00 pm CT.

Agenda

  1. Pre-amble - Governance Activities for RVWG

  2. Part 1 – Review Ed-Fi 2019 Goals 

  3. Part 2 – Ed-Fi Technical Roadmap 

    1. Introduction to the Ed-Fi Technical Roadmap

    2. Overview of 2019 Roadmap Inputs

  4. Part 3 – GAT Discussion and Feedback

  5. Wrap up 

 Link to meeting PPT

Participation

Members:

Support:

Meeting Minutes

Refer to the meeting PPT for additional details on the meeting minutes and discussions.

When available, meeting minutes should be read, and any corrections sent to Chris.

Reporting and Visualization Work Group

The RVWG has a new chair, Billy Buchanan from Fayette County Schools in Kentucky. Jamie Martinez, the former chair, has taken a new university position.

The RVWG charter has been updated based on GAT feedback. It is beginning with Phase 1: Information Gathering. The charter is located at here, and has been endorsed by the GAT (Feb 25th)  and approved by the Executive Council (Feb 28th). (See https://tracker.ed-fi.org/browse/GOV-5.)

The RVWG Community Survey has been reviewed and endorsed by the GAT. (See https://tracker.ed-fi.org/browse/GOV-7.)

Part 1 – Review Ed-Fi 2019 Goals

The Alliance reviewed the high level goals and objectives for the Alliance for 2019 with GAT members. GAT members will be more closely involved with development of annual goals for next year (2020).

There has been a good response to having a more turn key/push button approach to avoid the cost and complexity to reach scale. A focus on working with CEDS and Generate with the second implementation of Ed-Fi Suite 3 is planned along with implementing upgrades in multiple locations

There was a short recess while Dr. Deborah Gist, Tulsa’s superintendent, joined the group to extend a warm welcome from Tulsa Public Schools.

Discussion ensued and there was a reminder that some state laws have stipulations related to education data such as Oklahoma’s SIF requirement for the transfer of data. Districts need help in some states in getting SEA support. There is discussion of an Ed-Fi to SIF connector for LEAs in states such as Massachusetts. Also, work is going on with AWS and others on the right approach to include a support structure. There is a need for further maturing data out of ODS. It is understood that there is data that will never be certified. The data import tool should help.

There was a call for stronger, easier access for teachers – perhaps a heads up display. For many districts, the student information system is the single point that most teachers visit on a regular, frequent basis. But there needs to be a lower cost to use infrastructure. How can we develop strong information delivery to teachers through vendor options? How do we show end to end for low budgets and low skill levels for staff? Showcase LEA use to drive more request for vendors to do integrations.

A request was made to better support version upgrades. The most useful information to teachers is from assessments and there has to be some backward compatibility. This is a big issue in the Alliance: the tension of growth and progress versus the reality of where people are.

Part 2 – Ed-Fi Technical Roadmap

The Alliance publishes and maintains a Technology Roadmap, as well as a Technical Suite Version Matrix. In prior years, the annual roadmap was published in January, and updated quarterly. In 2019, the Alliance is publishing the roa map in April, concurrent with the Technical Congress. There are three part of 2019 Roadmap inputs: data exchange standards, ODS/API and Ed-Fi tools.

There may be opportunities within LEAs and SEAs who have skills and capacity to help develop and deliver technology enhancements. The Alliance is open to ideas to do this better and would like to build community support around implementations and knowledge of lessons learned. It was suggested that a formal process to allocate ~10% of time to travel between agencies to help with implementations.  Another suggestion to enable community sharing is to support strong documentation/case studies and give easier access to same.

See meeting PPT for information on data exchange standards (slides 10-14). The idea proposed is to have Ed-Fi support for one current version along with the one before the newest version. This was well-received with the caution that it could be problematic for vendors who have clients who want earlier version support.

Social emotional learning (SEL) and content and tool usage are being incubated within the Assessment Work Group. Special education will be a new work group with kick-off at Tech Congress in April.   

Part 3 - GAT Discussion and Feedback

See slide 27 for the concept for iterative model of standards development. The questioned was asked whether a draft RFC (Request for Comment) appeal to Community members before going into core. What concerns are there with this process? There was a good reaction by the GAT and the feeling that having a process in place will help create stability in response to engagement to either support or monitor; will help manage and control overall innovation resource. On the other hand, a minority response was not liking to wait for a lot of process-driven input; raises more concern than comfort. Need to keep track of what percent of what comes out of work groups change/go into standard and how long does it take.
Assessment scenario outlining the experience of certification that had developers having to write integration against it that did not work and triggered breaking change in 2.5 and many impacts in 30 days to implementations. In transitioning to more LEA work and in consideration of new ESSA requirements for certain data (such as finance and SEL) that has never been reported, need to develop effective solutions more quickly. It was recommended to use the GAT model and help lay out a path/routine to move work components along, tagging (monitoring) where projects are and clarifying roles and expectations of different Community members. See if it works and change/adapt as needed. Another suggestion was to select 2 sites as pilots before total adoption but need to have GAT approval to do that. Also, it would be to have specs of work product in all proposals.

See slide 17- 19 for proposed plans for the ODS/API for 2019. With regard to usae cases for "data out", one response is to review what comes out of RVWG; will have different approaches – who are the new users we are seeking to attract? This will be discussed more by new SIG under the TAG, but this may miss potential users and new adopters. There is general agreement within the GAT that new adopters should be considered in addition to current users. There were differing views as to the relative prioritization of new users vs.managing pain points of those already on the journey as implementers (which also adds value to new adopters).

Wrap up

Next GAT meeting will be virtual on Thursday, March 14th from 11 am to 12:30 pm CT. 

Action Items

  • GAT members are reminded to review minutes from 2019-1-24 meeting and send any comments to Chris.

  • GAT members are to review the RVWG Charter.

  • GAT members are to review the RVWG Community Survey.

  • The certification discussion (PPT slides 28-30) will be addressed during the March 2019 GAT meeting.