1. LDS SIF Pilot Update STATS-DC 2012 Data Conference July 13, 2012

2. Your Presenters Dennis Wallace (CPSI, Ltd) Craig Rhombs (State of Minnesota) 2

3. About Minnesota 3 Public School Districts 525 Total Number of Schools 2,478 Total Number of Teachers 52,839 Total Student Enrollment 837,053 2010 & 2011 State Data

4. Pilot Overview One project out of seven that are associated with the MN SLDS grant Purpose of the pilot is to: Allow MDE and districts to get some initial experience with SIF data exchanges in limited situations Determine if MDE will recommend using SIF as a protocol for data exchanges between districts and MDE Use this experience to inform a long -erm strategy recommendation for SIF Also develop experience in inter-state exchange of student existence data (StudentLocator) 4

5. District Pilot Grant Selection Process Selection Criteria Small and large districts RMIC organizations considered Variety of Student Information Systems used in state SIF-certified agents for district applications Specify project need, benefit, timeline and budget Number of Participant Districts Round 1: 8; Round 2: 8 5

6. Intra-state Grant Response Three periods of testing 1- Initial testing with Anoka-Hennepin 2- First grant award with Regional Data Centers cmERDC – four districts (two types of SIF agent) TIES – three districts (one type of SIF agent) 3- Second grant award Eight total applicants (6 accepted, representing nine districts and three types of SIF agents) Some involving multiple districts Summary 16 school districts Participating SIS Vendors: Edupoint, Pearson, TIES, JMC, Spedforms 6

7. Pilot Highlights… Intra-state Limited to a few districts and vendors Data exchanges limited in scope Focus is on student identify Ad hoc testing may include student enrollment Information is not transferred to MDE production environments Inter-state details being worked out with other states in the upper midwest 7

8. Intra-state Pilot Details Testing involves a pseudo school Limited information is exchanged (mainly “StudentPersonal”) Exchange is with a “test school” of 40 students Focus is on testing the process with validation of student identify information and selected SIF fields Districts can specify a series of ad-hoc tests for a duration of 4 hours to pilot additional information exchange if desired 8

9. Pilot details continued… Zone integration server located at the state MDE has an agent that will speak to any districts that have grant applications Districts have agents that are configured to publish information to MDE Avoiding the issue of “horizontal” integration Horizontal SIF integration may already be in place, but the project did not address local integration of data A local zone integration server was not a requirement for the grant ZIS was hosted by the state 9

10. Security Normal SIF security Data housed in a test environment Relational data base where SIF objects are stored Separate student repository (but the same student ID validation “engine”) 10

11. Pilot SIF Interoperability for the State Student Identifier Automation with Two Districts and the MDE 11

12. 12 Pilot Intra-State Interoperability (Proposed)

13. CPSI Toolset Used at the MDE State-Assigned Student Identifier xDAdHoc Ad Hoc Data Reporting Tool & Dashboard for Reporting Errors xDValidator Validation Rules Engine and Rules Creator xDStore Operational Data Store and Data Mart Builder xDUA (xDComposer, xDMover, xDTransporter) ETL toolset for data mapping and transport xDZIS SIF Zone integration Server 13

14. Why Use the SIF Specification? Identifies a set of common definitions for educational data (Data Objects) Contains a set of rules for data sharing (Infrastructure) that guarantees delivery of data in a secure, timely manner. Ensures all educational data systems can be implemented regardless of the software chosen Availability of test harness, profiles and certification program add quality control measures Scalable and allows for replacement of applications at a later date in a more efficient manner Supports student level record collection and student record transcript exchange 14

15. Why Real Time Collection? All the Data – All the TimeConstant Data CorrectionNo Human InterventionScheduled CollectionNo Flat File Upload 15

16. SIF Certification and Profiles OptionDescriptionAdvantages SIF Certification  Testing of a specification application/agent pairing.  Renewed on a yearly basis.  Known operational program  Basic level of certification Organizational Profile  A specific listing of objects and elements an organization requires and applications must adhere.  Mapping document created by MN DOE.  Ensures specific interoperability needs for organizations (SEAs or other agencies)  Provides common expectations for all within and working with organizations  May include extended elements not currently in the SIF specification  Offers greater out-of-the-box interoperability 16

17. MN Profile Mapping Document (Interface Control ) 17

18. Login /Enter Data in System Check Error Counts Check Error Reports Correct Errors at Source Wait for Validation Data Entry Work Flow 18

19. Intra-state Costs Cost was very minimal for districts District costs are averaging about $12k per district for hardware, software, and personnel Infrastructure and personal experience can be used to support eventual state or district strategy 19

20. Lessons Learned Well positioned to make strategy recommendations If we decided to recommend SIF as a solution, we would look at a phased approach for adopting any new data submission processes Could have implications for inter-state data exchange Exchanges seem viable from MDE perspective Regional service centers would be significant players since districts mostly lack the required technical expertise Vendor and district input needed 20