SWG 2022-08-04 Meeting

Participation

Support

Nancy Wilson, Ann Su - Ed-Fi Governance Support

Meeting recording Link

The meeting was held 2022-08-04  1:00Pm -2:15pm CT via WebEx

Agenda and Notes

• Refer to the Meeting PPT for important information

• Ed-Fi ODS/API Installation Configuration Options especially for Admin and Security DBs
  • Possible configurations for Ed-Fi tech suite (API + Databases) especially for managing the Admin and Security database as we are expecting a new release (Data Standard 4.0a and API 6.0) in Aug
    • 
  • Delaware - default mode 
  • Minnesota is year-specific with customized admin tool and can be configured locally  that can be one Ed-Fi admin instance and new API version installation in 22-23. 
  • Indiana - year specific mode with shared admin security database across the years and probably going to option 4 in new version with generation of keys and secrets to keep people locked out until their vendors are ready - also managing keys and secrets in Keybolt to make it accessible; schools sharing keys and secrets with other vendors is a concern - want to incorporate which vendor is sending, stored in admin tool but security is not checking if that is correct vendor. Has pros and cons but a concern when vendor leaves should not be handing same key and secret to new vendor.
  • Arizona copies the same secret from year to year but have maintained 3 to 4 databases for each (option 3). Active vendors have key to access data. When LEA moves on to another SIS vendor may provide new key. Still keep same key and secret every year.
  • Minnesota is doing #5 but trying to learn new way to do this.
  • Wisconsin - don’t use Ed-Fi tools for deployment - like using devops to migrate data in place with modified schema.
  • Wisconsin - We work with so many vendors and reach out to them about systems using   different keys and secrets within different years and willing to do but will involve technical development and going to wait for now.  
  • Sayee asking Wisconsin and Jaidaa - For every major version will have security database - not sure don’t want to force upon them but still lock down. 
  • Some vendors are ready and some are not for every year key and secret but problematic for districts.  The wish is to issue a key and secret for every year but we are not there yet.  
  • Indiana - if WI dealing with so many vendors and LEA is to give out key and secret how are you managing the LEA not handing out a SIS secret to some other vendor? We have all custom claim sets tailored specifically to what they need with tools readily available to do the right thing and we do a lot of outreach.
  • Wisconsin - When LEA gets a new vendor we send email and they log in to our app to get the key and secret from there and not rely on LEA to give it.
• Roster Domain - Identifying Issues and Solution Brainstorming
  • Review PPT for additional information.
  • Indiana - our intention is to use section data and marrying with course data in particular credits and run into challenges with non-conventional scheduling such as online schools - going to credit recovery to resolve this with each student may be assigned a different subject working at their own pace and may be working with multiple subjects - same with independent study but we are trying to pick up what student is attempting at any given time and matching to post classes outcomes - trying to work with schools and vendors - state needs to know this information for graduation pathways planning and such and wants to allow as much local flexibility as possible
    • See slides for Ed’s proposed solution based on Indiana work with detailed graduation plans for individual students per school year session (roadmap of 4 years of high school) and next step of students registering for course offerings. Last slide - now what happens with section - maintains relationship between section and what course offerings student is actually attending with same approach on teacher side - students assigned to sections and course offerings - still have issues of multiple paths to same place - larger breaking of the model and wanted to introduce to the work group for feedback option 1 is viable but does this need additional elaboration. 
    • Course offering at higher level and credit recovery section is referenced as going from course offering registration to section - section is linked to course code based on what is offered in it because teachers also have to be assigned
  • A lot of current and potential changes were discussed at Tech Congress are included such as Wisconsin’s recommended changes.
    • Where does grade fall? After course offering.
    • How is staff connected? Staff section association could assign staff to same section that is associated with different course offerings and a single staff person could be teaching different course offerings in that section
    • We are going to change whole setup because of changes of credit recovery or have options for what is currently happening and another for credit recovery; idea of graduation plan is huge and wanted by LEAs++
  • Sayee- roster domain problems around section (not just credit recovery) currently not being allowed data for current practices. WI wants to understand from other states the configuration and the setup they have.
  • Wisconsin - have heard from LEAs about how we look at data - it gets in the way of education moving forward as they run schools not as a student in a seat and it’s that scheduling side of things getting in the way - need to know what student is getting credit for which class but not where they were when getting it - trying to find a way that we can get what we need (Indiana agrees) LEAs need flexibility in how they schedule - “this is not the 1950’s any more” that is not what is happening in practice
    • 
  • We need to determine how to peel off section for this model - it is a hub. May need to see how to tie student/course offering back to section - do we mimic a new section model? WI would need a grade off of student/course offering association. Listen to the end of meeting recording for specific suggestions. More discussion is needed.
    • 
  • We’re not going to solve this for the current model.  This is about what is next. We need to find the places where the current model just doesn’t work and figure out what the next version needs to be able to handle. Breaking changes are expected.
  • Roster Domain Model Changes – Ed-Fi will share out the initial approach for solving the problems and looking to hear feedback from the SEAs.   
  1. Student’s graduation plan especially on the course side and on the program side
  2. Student in a single section taking multiple courses
  3. Responsible teacher for the individual courses
  4. Individual student’s participation in a program within a course offering
  5. Student exiting and coming back to the same section

Action Items:

• For planning the agenda, please respond to this Google Forms survey with topics you'd like to discuss. We will collect your responses through 9/2/2022 to publish an agenda soon after. 
• Webinar planned for 9/21/22 at 1 pm CDT to share What’s New in Ed-Fi v4.0 and API 6.0.  Mark your calendar to join Sayee Srinivasan for an overview of the latest in the data standard and AP
• To continue discussing roster domain model changes in the future, Sayee will send out a survey if needed to SEA members for feedback to the model.
• Update: Ed-Fi and Indiana are doing more brainstorming sessions on the roster domain model to refine the model. The draft version of the model should be ready before the Summit for states to review and provide feedback.

• Sayee to  send slide deck for members to provide feedback and comments back to Sayee

Next meeting: 9/14/2022 12:00-1:15pm CT

Last Update: 12 Sep 2022