SWG 2021-04-01 Meeting

Participation

First NameLast NameOrganization
FuatAkiTexas Education Agency
BrittoAugustineArizona Department of Education
JillAurandNebraska Department of Education
AaronBrownSouth Carolina Department of Education
RohithChintamaneniArizona Department of Education
SwethaChinthapallySouth Carolina Department of Education
ThomasChristensenWisconsin DPI
WyattCothranSouth Carolina Deparment of Education
DebbieDaileyIndiana Department of Education
JenniferDuganMinnesota DOE
KenFettigNorth Dakota Information Technology Department
JoleenGrossNorth Dakota Information Technology Department
TerriHansonTexas Education Agency
JohnKellerIndiana Department of Education
ScottKuykendallDelaware DOE
DorisMannMichigan CEPI
KarenMilletteMinnesota DOE
DanielRalyeaSouth Carolina Deparment of Education
LathaRamasamyTennessee Department of Education
SayeeSrinivasanEd-Fi Alliance
WendyStephensSouth Carolina Department of Education
MelissaStrawWisconsin DPI
RickThompsonSouth Carolina Deparment of Education
MaureenWentworthEd-Fi Alliance
JeanWoodNew Mexico Public Education Departmment

Support

Nancy Wilson, Ann Su - Ed-Fi Governance Support

Meeting recording LINK

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

The meeting was held on 2021-04-01, 11:00am - 12:15pm CT, via WebEx

Agenda

Meeting Notes

  • Meeting cadence
    • Recurring monthly meetings - first Thursday at 11am CT
    • Sub-group meetings with state with priority use cases
  • Action Items from March SEA WG Meeting
    • Accommodation Need – Customization field can be used for this. Can create separate profile by vendor.
      • Delaware shared model (see slide deck)
        • Disability Code from DE to Vendors. Pearson is pulling demographics but not accommodation. This is being discussed. Pearson currently receives data via spreadsheet.
        • Districts provide accommodations to separate vendors.
        • Sayee will take action item to find out when accommodation data will be available.
        • Sayee to discuss with Delaware and SC regarding demographics information for assessment.
      • SC - uses similar demographics for alternative assessment.
        • Provides instructional setting that identifies SPED in alternate assessment but depends on assessment provider.
      • IN - need to establish actual descriptor, and add academic areas
        • Sayee to have follow up meeting with Debbie Dailey on accommodation descriptor/demographic indicator
        • IN has state-wide accommodation system and English learner system. Source of accommodation data is statewide IEP system.
        • IN sends some demographic accommodation data through current model in assessment roster
        • Should be defined and established as a common descriptor, not free value.
        • Need to be able to indicate the academic subject area and show what part of the test the accommodation is being used for.
        • Should be mapped to individual subject that needs accommodations. Could have separate records based on subject related to assessment.
        • There is not a hard deadline re transfer to Ed-Fi but want to get away from text file transfer.
        • Sayee to gather specific requirements from IN and SC to help determine if actual accommodation descriptor is needed
      • NE - currently don’t provide accommodation to assessment vendor. For long term, it’s better to have assessment by subject with related accommodation.
      • IN and SC - provide vendors with accommodations and they send which ones were actually used. SC provides accommodation data to vendors included with rostering information with values set by vendor; get data from LEA and transfer to vendor via CSV and get back what was used.
      • Strong interest across the participating states to push up data to all vendors.
  • Texas Education Agency (TEA) Use Case - Non-Enrolled Student Receiving Special Services (see slides 10-12 in meeting PPT)
    • Data collection for reporting requirement at student level; data reported at aggregate level in a legacy system using Ed-Fi. Outliers with home school, private school and such.
    • DE - evaluation done by early learning program, state does not collect information
    • MI - works with Head Start - have a need to collect information but early childhood enrollments do not fit into Ed-Fi model.
    • SC - collects early childhood data
      • SEA receives federal IDEA funds for all students and allocates funds to LEAs for enrolled and non-enrolled students within their district.
      • SEA and LEA have responsibility for reporting those students through federal reporting. This is a federal requirement for all states (and LEAs).
    • IN - LEAs need to report students enrolled in non-public schools
    • NE - district is capturing data for students enrolled in non-public schools
    • Ed-Fi Options to address issues
      • SEA receives federal IDEA funds for all students and allocates funds to LEAs for enrolled and non-enrolled students within their district. SEA and LEAs have responsibility for reporting those students through federal reporting. This is a federal requirement for all states (and LEAs).
      • Sayee working with TEA on these draft options.
  • Action Items:
  • Sayee to schedule 30 minute interview time with DE, IN, SC, MN, and NE to discuss model change.
  • States to inform Sayee with any concerns about scheduling recurring monthly SEA Work Group meetings on first Thursday each month at 11 am CT.
  • States to identify priority use cases in Google sheet here

Next meeting: TBD

Draft 2021-04-019