2020-03-19 Educator Preparation Technical Subgroup Meeting

Participation

The meeting is scheduled via WebEx 2019-08-06 12:00 pm-1:00 pm CT.

Agenda/Meeting Minutes:

Meeting Slides::2020-03-19-TPDM Technical Subgroup.pptx

1. Welcome and introduction

2. Brief discussion of what the subgroup is responsible for – statement of purpose

3. Looking Forward:

   1. Survey RFC dates and discussion
   2. TPDM RFC dates and discussion

4. Tickets we need help on

5. Questions and next steps

Comments or feedback from last meeting:  None

Discussion

Survey RFC

• Survey domain in TPDM to be brought into Ed-Fi Core as a whole
  • TPDMX 122 - metadata lost between numeric and text responses when both apply - working on design of that now. 
  • TPDMX 125 - SurveyQuestionResponse - need to support multiple choice, multiple answers
• Call w/in K-12 to have a survey domain, so will bring from TPDM
• Previously planned for 3/31/20 - in Core and in production ODS.
• Current plan to have specs doc on 3/31/20 (link) and release for comment from the community. Plan to include in Core on 7/31/20
• Working on following issues:
  • TPDMX-122 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • TPDMX-125 - Getting issue details... STATUS

TPDM RFC

• Last Date for ticket submission - 5/31
• Specification complete 6/12
• Release planned 7/31. Same date as Survey
• Consideration for TPDM RFC
  • Long-term TPDM incorporated in Core
  • Will that be able to extracted by faculty review purposes (e.g., promotion recognition - person itself)
    • SA: make a higher level entity = person, allow various roles 
• Remove survey domain
• Core Alignment Review - review TPDM in alignment with Ed-Fi Core
• Pruning unused domains - did a review of unused domains
• Person model - in consideration. No timeline, not sure if TPDM or Core
• Community submitted tickets
• Pruning
  • Prospect - prospect for a staff position, person you want in your org. Different from an applicant. 
    • Is there is enough information to know that data isn’t there? CSU does have data systems that have it, even if UTRGV and Relay may not. 
    • Indicating they may be interested in doing the post-bac degree
    • Alliance will keep watch on this - 
• reason for trimming - what’s push/intention - will they be deprecated? 
  • Technically removed from model, but have within source control to add back in if needed later
  • moving to RFC and remove as much as can due to size of TPDM\
• Desire to track recruiting event. Reality is that no one is tracking that data. No data to support that role now. Track prospective mentor teacher, ID people who might be good mentor teacher, but data isn’t there right now.
  • There is a system that is tracking some recruitment events. During application for undergraduate degree, we track whether they are interested in applying to a teacher credential program after their undergrad
• Credentials - need to be completed, no way to track in-progress
  • Looking at solution, model review panel looking at 
  • Credential is attached to a staff, possible need for a credential library (predefined credentials)
  • Is this for RFC 1.0? SA: Yes.
• Tickets we need input on:
• TPDMX-111 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • May need additional input from organizations to provide input on performance measure - provide name and email so we can have a 10-15 min follow-up
  • Performance Measure - combined metadata and response data - which means you have to replicate; proposal separates those similar to Assessment
  • PM Identifier - there was no title, so added that
  • How do you look at your data?
    • TWS as a rubric, with domains
    • TWS is the Performance measure, with multiple rubrics
  • Example: 
    • How many layers are there to a Performance Measure and the rubrics that are associated
    • Highest level - Performance Measure, Rubric, Rubric level
    • Want to make sure the structure and layers are best designed to make it more straightforward to do the mapping
  • could provide some feedback, but need to review first - can provide feedback as a follow-up
  • will update document in ticket
  • should we try to get the larger workgroup to have a discussion on this?
    • both - start with one off calls and then discuss with larger group
    • TPDM workgroup - April
• TPDMX-130 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  •  have survey where we track who the survey was sent to and whether or not they’ve responded, but in the end we only look at the data for those who responded. What is use case for knowing who survey was sent to?
  • A specific use case hasn't been provided, we''re looking to see if use case exists.
  • If no case exists currently will be noted in the specification for later comment
  • use case: long-term analysis. Dig into data to see who is most likely to respond to 1st, 2nd, 3rd attempts. Not helpful semester-to-semester, year-to-year.
• TPDMX-124 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • Out of time for meeting, no responses on this one

Next Steps:

•  Plan a full WG meeting (dates TBD)
• Steven to send out a doodle poll for another meeting in about a month.