EPP-2019-09-29 TPDM Work Group Meeting Minutes

Participation

Support

Steven Arnold, Nancy Smith - Ed-Fi Alliance

The meeting is scheduled 2019-09-29 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm CT. Hilton Austin Hotel, Room 404

Agenda/Meeting Minutes:

1. Welcome and introductions
2. Terms of the Ed-Fi Community Intellectual Property Disclosure Policy 
   1. Intellectual Property Slides
3. Explanation of US PREP, Relay, CEDS
4. Slack Overview
5. TPDM Governance - Current Groups
   
   1. TPDM Workgroup
      1. Technical Subgroup
      2. Model Review Panel
6. TPDM Governance - Potential Groups
   1. Dashboards (Cari - Later this year)
   2. LEA - How to use in K-12
7. JIRA Ticket Review and Discussion
8. Additional Discussions
9. Next Steps:

Comments or feedback from last meeting: 

Discussion:

TPDMX-10 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• Potential Types:
  • Trends in Education Course
• Booths at a Conference
• Teacher Conferences
• High School Recruitment 
• Career and College Fairs
• High School Clubs 
• Coffee Hour with Parents / Showcase
• Grant-funded recruitment events
• “Grow your own” grants
• STEM Education Clubs (undergrad / pre-program)
• Community Service Events
• Freshman Seminar
• PD Events
• When this is as a ticket is moved along, does the person making the ticket define the element? How much specificity do you need to create a high quality ticket?
  • as much specificity as possible, do try to make OOTB descriptor values but there is flexibility within model to send in different values
  • do I have ability to add local descriptors?
  • Operational definitions for tickets
• Note: hard to recruit teachers because you can make so much more in the STEM field
• Pathways vs Events

TPDMX-101 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• Survey and Person Target
• Sections with Person Targets
• Survey Section Response Rating - Is there a Rating for that Section? Should it be required? If optional - how should it be captured?
  • There is no aggregate rating for the section
  • always store the average or the individual response? Allowing for a summary value?
  • we do not require that information,
  • generally having flexibility and not having it required is most useful
  • Action: Survey Section Response Rating should be optional, flexability in datatype would be nice

TPDMX-39 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• TPP programs receiving data on K12 Assessments
• Often don’t have a lot of data on the assessments - e.g. date of assessment, but the model currently requires that
• Add Academic Subject?
• Received Date, Teacher ID, Academic Subject
• Will there always be an academic subject?
  • Content Area - there will be distributions across English and Math
  • Grade and Subject?
    • Teacher grade level, student grade level, content grade level
      • Content is usually unique enough
  • Grade 7 Math, Grade 8 Algebra 1 + ….
• PK current: Ed Org Id, School Year Taken, Fact as of (when received or date taken)
• Currently aggregated
• Relay collects anonymized - rolled up to Math 5. May produce an aggregate across grades.
• Content Area: Description of the assessment, not the student
• Most we could break it up by is grade
• content specific descriptors for younger grades?
  • Primarily 3rd and up
• What about SPED?
• When you look at data you look at many different things at that level. I am concerned that this student may go work in low income place and we will track her performance against others in other districts
• State is looking at growth of that teacher right now to give them that rating
• Data collection is up to how programs and districts are using it
• EdFi not collecting specific information on candidates
  • Background model so that we can collect it and provide it back to EPPs
  • Need to make sure the information structure is set up so we can do that work on the other end
• need growth information to be captured here as well - map back so we can add growth to it
• Growth model that TEA has - you are looking at growth being made, not just the score bc people have different circumstances
• be able to link that to our grads that are teaching
• In a HS environment - could be a semester exam, not a standardized exam. Would have to have some
• Could you go to the Standard Set?
• Certification Area?
  • No - people are teaching out of field
  • only care about the TC in the field that have been there 1-3 years
  • we care about the effectiveness in what we prepared them to teach
  • Look at multiple years
  • There is a separate domain entity about Student Growth
• it will vary the levels of data that you can collect. Have a TC that are linked to a number of students. May be able to identify the grades, subjects, etc. or maybe just Who are the students?
• Action: Data Model Panel review this feedback and come back to the Tech Work Group

TPDMX-49 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• You can identify the type of fieldwork experience
• Right now we just have hours per week, which is not representative of 
• Collect data every time we go to the field
• Planning
• Meeting with Mentor
• Instruction
• Right now - log Preparation log and Intervention log
• Description of what they did every time they log
• Aggregate recorded hours
• CS: Fieldwork is dependent on type of program; ACP might look at the internship
• In TX - hours per semester
• Get per course from the district - e.g. 15 hours
• Alma: tracking per semester
• Student, Field Experience, Output by quarter, semester…. Be more generic to use it on the HR side
• Alma: TCs are not employed yet 
• MO: Course/Semester level 
• For reporting requirements and HR requirements- need to be able to answer the number of hours they spent. Hrs per week is not useful. Need to be able to calculate the actual hours. Would have to backmap to determine an hours per week
• By semester makes more sense 
• Decision: by semester, quarter, course
• AR: what is prescribed and do we go over?
• We have programs within our program, bc we have candidates who accumulate more hours 
• State req - being able to differentiate where the hours were spent

TPDMX-22 - Getting issue details... STATUS

TPDMX-23 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• Co-teaching
  • Additional information and not just a y/n value?
    • Allow EPP to see what type of instruction they would need to be reinforcing
    • Apply more in this model vs this model etc
  • Whole group, small group, 1 on 1 may be more encompassing
  • Is there a larger framework of co teaching that we could compare this to? Hit more use cases
    • Parallel teaching etc
  • difficult to determine
  • maybe this is what our candidates or field supervisors are reporting
  • UTRGV does emphasize co-teaching in year long residence model
  • Currently mapped to Performance Measure
  • Certain types of co teaching?
    • UTRGV does not drill down that far - y/n would be sufficient at this time
    • Relay does not currently capture this
    • US Prep: want to dig into where the ticket came from
      • Think it was from SHSU, Lynda Scott or Shelly
      • Small group, whole group, SPED????
• Action: share out US Prep types of co-teaching (screen shot below from Calvin)

Additional Discussions:

• In relation to teacher observation - TC doing student teaching, evaluation of teacher after they have completed program and EPP wants to know how they are performing 
• Do not have financial perspective detailed out in model 

Next Steps:

Next  meeting: Date and time – TBD - A doodle poll will be created to establish the date/time for the next Work Group meeting.