Agenda

1. Ed-Fi executive update
2. Governance activities
   1. Leadership Council update
   2. Health metrics
3. Tier 1 Work group status
   1. Assessment work group
   2. Finance work group
   3. Reporting & Visualization work group
   4. Update on new work groups - SPED & TPDM
4. Discussion Topics
   1. Options and challenges for increasing fidelity and reproducible markers of certification
   2. Linking up IMS QTI Results Reporting & Ed-Fi Assessment API

 Link to meeting PPT

Participation

Members:

• Chris Moffatt (Deactivated)
• hochst
• dean.folkers 
• Billy Buchanan (Deactivated)
• satish.pattisapu
• Jami O'Toole (Deactivated)
• Troy Wheeler (Deactivated)
• Maureen Wentworth

Support:

• nwilson
• Eric Jansson (inactive account)

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.

Ed-Fi Executive Update

Troy welcomed the new chair of the RVWG, Billy Buchanan from Fayette County Schools in Kentucky.

There is a need to enlarge the GAT to include 1-2 Ed-Tech and/or Assessment representatives from vendor partners. Troy requested GAT members to share their comments and any recommendations they have for potential members. There was a comment that it would be good to focus on assessment representation.

Governance Activities

Leadership Council

Maureen reported that the Leadership Council will not be meeting during the Technical Congress, but rather there would be a kick-off in-person meeting in May and the date will be determined based on LC member schedules. In March and April there will be individual calls with each member to orient them on the governance structure and answer any questions. Membership is getting closer to completion with a few organization representatives still to be finalized.

Health Metrics

Rick has drafted health metrics for the governance components fashioned after those in place for HL7, the health care governance entity. The goal is to drive consistency of behavior and movement toward productivity. Work group leads will work on reviewing and fine tuning these. At large members can get back to Chris if they are interested in being involved in the review.

Tier 1 Work Group Statues

Assessment Work Group

Cesare Tise will be stepping up as the Ed-Fi staff person responsible for the AWG.

The Technical subgroup will be meeting virtually to discuss issues related to the API and Use Case subgroups such as the gaps in the API data model. Metro-Nashville, Pittsburgh and CORE are among new sites interested in participating.

Tool usage is included in the put-get work of the Use Case subgroup including click stream. It might be useful to break this out as a separate use case with clear language about the rationale.

Finance Work Group

John updated the GAT on Wisconsin’s deployment of the finance data model extensions. This work (in the sandbox) checked in correctly and there have been ongoing calls with the vendors (Skyward, Specialized Data Systems and Alio by Weidenhammer) for the 19-20 school year. The data quality portal has been built out. They are working through validations and going live with target districts the end of July.

At the Tech Congress, the FWG is going to have an update of the WI model, review the work group charter and discuss next steps.

Reporting & Visualization Work Group

Pointing at an analytics middle tier provides an option for reporting/analytics. However, there are not a lot of districts or states with the experience to use complicated tool sets for developing reporting and analytics. Districts/states need off the shelf or open source tools to satisfy end-users without deep technical background/expertise – together with a core set of visualizations and reports that an agency can build content on top of. The RVWG also wants to consider reporting and visualization beyond teachers. Leadership buy-in for Ed-Fi infrastructure is important and for this the C-level needs to perceive value from reporting and visualization.

Questions or actions for the RVWG to address include:

• Gather use information for the analytics middle tier in order to determine additional work needed.
• Develop a comprehensive strategy to optimize data out via the Ed-Fi API and the role of the middle tier for this data out strategy for generalized visualizations.
• Develop a strategy for open source visualizations.
• Provide feedback on aggregations or computations that are needed for the middle tier.

New Work Groups

Two new work groups are being formed: teacher prep and special education. Nancy Smith and Steven Arnold will be working with the teacher prep work group and Sean Casey with special education work group. The goal of the special education group is to look at core use cases to ensure comprehensive data is included for special ed. There was a request to include non-technical special education representatives. GAT members should send an email to Sean Casey if they have staff interested in participating. Onboarding meetings are being held to orient Nancy, Steve, Cesare and Sean.

Discussion Topics

Options and challenges for increasing fidelity and reproducible markers of certification

Two options were discussed to strengthen certifications:

• Require that the vendor provide evidence of working integrations in a production environment.
• Use a “consumer reports” approach to allow customers to validate vendor certifications.

Wisconsin is using a combination of 1 and 2, with an LEA advisory team sign-off on the adequacy of field implementations.

The GAT members agreed that certification is an issue that needs more attention. It was decided that the GAT members will consider whether to take ownership of this issue for a couple of meetings to further discuss strategy and approach. The GAT may also consider whether to establish a SIG or work group.

Linking up IMS QTI Results Reporting & Ed-Fi Assessment API

Billy led this discussion. There are two different XML based standards for IMS and Ed-Fi. How can we translate or develop tools that map to Ed-Fi so vendors who become certified in one can be used by both? A question was raised about whether this issue applies to other data domains and standards beyond assessment. It was proposed to give this to the AWG and work on the model for other pieces across the scope. However, it was decided to continue this discussion at the GAT meeting in April before assigning action..

Wrap up

The next meeting will be on Thursday, April 11, 2019 from 12 to 1:30 pm ET at the Technical Congress in St. Pete’s Beach, FL. Satish, Mark and Stephen will not be able to come. Their organizations will be represented at the Technical Congress and they will try to participate in the GAT meeting virtually. Chris will work on the online capability for the virtual link to the meeting.

Action Items

• Troy requested GAT members to share their comments and any recommendations they have for Assessment vendors to be an at-large representative on the GAT.
• Work group leads will review and fine tune the Work Group Health Metrics. At large members are asked to get back to Chris if they want to be part of the review.
• Chris will work on the online capability for the virtual link to the April 11th meeting.
• GAT members should send an email to Sean Casey Sean.Casey@ed-fi.org if they have staff interested in participating in the Special Ed Work Group and to Nancy Smith Nancy.Smith@ed-fi.org for the Teacher Prep Work Group.
• The GAT was requested to consider if they could commit to a couple meetings to propose direction and options on the certification.
• The “linking” discussion will be continued at the April 2019 GAT meeting