GAT Meeting - 2020-07-6

Owned by Ann Su (Unlicensed)
Last updated: Jul 17, 2020 by Chris Moffatt (Deactivated)

Agenda

  1. GAT member-led priorities discussion
  2. Ed-Fi Alliance Updates
  3. Ed-Fi Governance Activities

Link to meeting PPT

Participation

Members:

Support:

Meeting Minutes

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

Previous meeting minutes can be found here.

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

GAT member led priorities discussion

GAT members brainstormed and prioritized topics to discuss at length on the call.

The first topic was Data Interoperability in the context of curricula products.  Key discussion points included:

  • Fayette would like to act on data from their curricula vendors such as Pearson, Harcourt and Houghton Mifflin. Pearson contractually restricts users from scraping data from their system, while others are less restrictive. Data of interest include unit test data and detailed usage or engagement data.  However getting this and more detailed data to the item level is difficult and expensive when done at the district level.  Other options are not viable such as Caliper Analytics requiring servers with public-facing port (against state security policies) or with Houghton Mifflin’s processes of having to log into their system and simulate logging in as every classroom educator.
  • Others echoed these needs and concerns. The point was stated that curriculum mapping on the front end is required before such test results can be meaningfully applied on the back end to student progress.
  • Rio Rancho also needs to address the mapping issue as they put emphasis on curriculum-based assessments and SEL rather than on accountability. They also have different implementations from site to site, and this year are emphasizing curriculum-based assessment. They are looking to combine data from Eureka (Great Minds), Edgenuity and Google Classroom and discussing how to address state requirements for virtual students such as observation assessments and which data are important to gather.
  • Wisconsin – while our legislation helped to motivate SIS vendors to become API certified, there is no such motivator for curriculum vendors.
  • Boston – they compared usage data to attendance data (as reported by teachers) and found discrepancies. Usage (or engagement) data are not currently sufficient to determine attendance. Also at this point, they do not know what the state will require.
  • Engagement is important but how to calculate attendance depending on grade level and what instruction model parents have selected is difficult. Rio Rancho needs three calendars per school to track the attendance options offered to their students next year.
  • Fayette - Engagement is poorly defined and some combination of click-path/stream and/or telemetry is needed to show that the student is doing something in the platform over time.
  • Fayette - Suggestion: EdReports is working on adding a new section to their curricula reviews about the technology side of the products and includes a section about interoperability. Maybe when EdReports start releasing their new reports the Alliance could put out some statements in support of their work to make interoperability in curricula products more visible?
  • Need good definition of “direct control” by USDOE – vendor has data but not LEA.
  • Wisconsin – yes, that could be a viable next step.
  • PowerSchool – Schoology knows the details of student engagement, including the types of devices they use. This data could be mined. Need separate resources/information defined for learning management systems so they can provide more engagement data. For example, PS can tell what kind of devices have been used (not in SIS now). Would be good to involve other LMS vendors.
  • The following resources/ideas were posted in chat:
  • Jami – is convening a group to look across an array of systems to try and define engagement and attendance, and the role of the data model a good next step? Additionally, starting with widely used tools, to see how to extract data would be useful. Suggested initial systems could be  Canvas and Google Classroom, perhaps 1 or 2 other most utilized tools. Based on Learn Platform analysis Seesaw and Khan are also highly utilized.
  • At the conclusion of this discussion, It was agreed that Alliance leadership would further review options and potential for establishing a work stream to determine how to tackle the urgent problem around attendance and engagement measure in hybrid and disrupted school scenarios

The second topic chosen for discussion was Rostering using Ed-Fi (versus Clever and/or One Roster).  Key discussion points included:

  • Wisconsin – working with ACT and Follet Destiny pilots for rostering; using Class Link to host One Roster. Looking to assist vendors that can leverage data for rostering that is already being sent to state and streamline processes.
  • Troy – perhaps a quid pro quo – create a rostering end point for vendors and in return receive usage data – would need middle-tier filtering parameters to ensure roster is for the correct subset of students. #1 request of LEAs considering Ed-Fi is “give me a free rostering system”.
  • Boston – COVID-19 provided the incentive needed to require all vendors become compliant with either Clever, One Roster or Ed-Fi. For LEAs Clever is “free” because vendors who use it pay for it. Clever has easy user interface. Boston has clear review process where if a vendor doesn’t use one of these 3 solutions Boston won’t use that vendor.
  • WI – we can do demo on what we are doing with WISE roster trying to build it to share with the community.
  • Nebraska (from chat log) - creating a space to capture the options as the definition of engagements are determined makes sense. An item to add is a statewide virtual school that would be an additional use case of the rostering conversation as we have teachers that do not want to come to school, but could be online teachers, we have students that don't want to come to school, but want learning, and schools want to provide options, avoid lawsuits, and so there is an increasing call for setting up a virtual school environment in Nebraska and we are moving to Canvas as the statewide option/platform. 

Ed-Fi Alliance Updates

The T3 Innovation Network was briefly discussed to see if anyone was aware of this effort.  None of the GAT participants were familiar with the effort.

Ed-Fi Governance Activities

Topic deferred

Action Items:

  • Ed-Fi leadership to report out on activities the Alliance might sponsor around tackling the problem of attendance and engagement in hybrid and disrupted school scenarios.
  • Wisconsin to provide demo of statewide assessment rostering solution for the next GAT meeting.

Next meeting: August 13, 2020 at noon ET