User Experience 2019-10-22 Meeting notes

Purpose of the use case: To be used to develop an RFC that outlines (for community review and Ed-Fi Alliance approval) a set of visualizations to be created from the Ed-Fi ODS. If approved, the use cases will be used to guide a deeper dive (RVWG phase 2) into design and development.  For this purpose, the use case should:

• Be such that the data required for the use case can be pulled from the ODS – or at least only require extensions to the existing ODS domains.
• Not duplicate reports from commonly-available transactional systems (like an SIS) – i.e. fill a need that is not being easily met with commonly available transactional systems.
• Preferably have a direct impact at the school, classroom or student level.
• Be reasonably scoped such that the visualization can be developed at a modest level of effort and cost.
• Create visualizations that are re-usable across a broad spectrum of education agencies.
• Other?

 Actors:

1. The use case as currently written points to:
   1. A policy-level person
   2. A person with responsibilities that may include accountability but goes beyond that role
   3. A person that has responsibility for achieving KPIs around discipline (at the district or school level)
   4. A person that can assess aspects of staff performance (i.e. discipline reporting patterns by the reporting staff members)
2. To limit the scope, it helps to limit the actors for the discipline use case. Selection of actors could include 1 to 3 actors that require basically the same views of a set of data, but for different levels (i.e. district-wide, school-wide, classroom)
   1. Actors should be positions that are actually wanting solutions to the problems that the use case is addressing. It will help future use case development (phase 2) if volunteers in the actor positions can be identified to help design the visualizations.
3. Potential actors for discipline use case (from the persona listing):
   • Director of student services
   • School principal and assistant principal
   • School psychologist/diagnostician (counselor?)
   • Instructional coach, might have a role in discipline depending on the role that they play in the school if they are a part of a particular intervention.
   • Other potential actors:
     • School board members at the aggregate level to review policy, based on more recent school shooting incidents.
     • Superintendents in Texas look at discipline quite often, looking for trends and disparity in action based on the incident. 
   • SPED director also has some overlap with the above. This may be a joint effort with SPED-WG?
   • What role does head of security play in this use case?
     • Mainly seen security involved in trends but not day to day discipline
     • In FL, there is more involvement with schools between community support teams, police as a way to see trends and assign/get resources for students in a school or district. Trying not to be reactive.

Data required – see example from AWG use case:

• Incident log should show (are there options sets for each of these or are they open text):
  1. Date
  2. Time/time period (e.g. 10:38am or morning recess) - Probably both, but assuming there is interest in period info as well as a specific time.
  3. Location - Might be difficult to capture, it would be good to have geolocation as some spots are not always codified. In FL we use school, off- campus but would be nice to get more detailed info is possible.
  4. Offense (discipline code)
  5. Action taken and/or intervention
  6. Reported by
• General Comments:
  • Discipline is the most difficult/bad data to deal with. Discipline codes between schools and districts are not easily mapped.
  • Most systems capture this information, but codification is not standard so depending on the system you get multiple codes for the same/similar actions. There is a lot of variance between source systems.

Metrics (adopted from Tracker ticket):

1. Number/Percentage of offenses by type/code (by student, school, district, offense, time of day, location, reporter staff, ??)
2. Number/Percentage of actions taken (by student, school, district, offense, time of day, location, reporter staff, ??)
3. Number of suspensions (included above)
4. Number of days of suspension (by student, school, district, offense, reporter staff, ??)
5. Number/Percentage of offenses by student count (by student, school, district, offense, time of day, location, reporter staff, ??)
6. PBIS ODR calculation: # major ODRs/100 students/school day (calculated by school)

Other metrics to propose:

• Disproportionate discipline, student demographics for metrics. We want to show the disparity between student groups and actions taken.
• Disparity of actions between school sites or districts.
• For multi-tenant environments, if you have high mobility these metrics should follow the student. If a student moves to another school, the new school should now how many incidents and action has been taken, while also reviewing the school association. Would be nice if discipline incidents in another school where maybe attendance was lower. Moving to the new school and improving attendance might reduce discipline incidents and we would like to identify this.
• Location data does not seem to be very reliable:
  • In FL there are consequences for Superintended

Data issues:

1. Standardized options sets for things like discipline and action codes
2. Availability of data (like time of day)
3. Unstructured text (description of incident)