Request for Proposal (RFP) bid opportunity: Iowa Department of Education

We have been advised of the following Request for Proposal (RFP) from Iowa Department of Education.  Any queries relating to this RFP should be made directly with the relevant contacts contained within the RFP document.

The Iowa Department of Administrative Services (DAS), on behalf of the Iowa Department of Education (IDOE), wants to inform you of a Request for Proposal (RFP) bid opportunity for a State-wide, vendor-hosted Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) solution.   IDOE anticipates an SaaS solution that will establish a single SIF data collection system.  A single, unified Operational Data Store (ODS) would be integrated with the single data collection system.  If your organization is interested in this RFP opportunity or, if you know of other companies that may be interested, the complete RFP bid information and documents can be accessed at: https://bidopportunities.iowa.gov/Home/BidInfo?bidId=391d1873-a9ba-4e82-8f34-51e25465f29e  

NOTE: Vendors with questions or comments about the RFP must submit them by 12PM Noon Central on Sept. 14, 2018. (See page one of the RFP for details.)

Further RFP schedule details can be found on the first two pages of the RFP document.

Deadline for the State to receive contractor proposals for the opportunity is 12PM NOON Central on WEDNESDAY, OCT. 17, 2018.

Thank you for your interest.

Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)

IEP’s are critical for learners and the practitioners who provide their learning opportunities including parents – and it's the law.

“Children with disabilities have the same right to a free and appropriate public education as any other child… (that provides) services to meet their unique needs”

This is laid out in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a 2008 amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA).  ADA covers certain accommodations with what’s known as a 504 Plan where IDEA gives students with more significant disabilities the right to specialized instruction. The need continues to grow.  By 2014–15, the number of children and youths served under IDEA was 6.6 million, or 13 percent of total public school enrollment.

The process is straight forward, in theory.  A request is made, an eligibility study is done, a plan is developed, a list of annual goals, a plan for achieving them and a plan for monitoring progress is developed.  In my role at a technical standards organization, as an educator and a parent, I believe ALL learners should have an IEP and I know how effectively built technology can make that happen. 

Three years ago, the Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community undertook the challenge to gather experts in IEP development and usage, and link them to IEP application vendors to create a standardized IEP that could address some IEP challenges:

• Learner mobility and IEP information moving with them
• Challenges in creation and presentation of information from numerous sources plus current paper and pencil dependence
• Changing from one system to another and proprietary “hooks” in applications

The technical blueprint is now freely available for end users to demand from the IEP products they purchase, and for software developers to build to.  The SIF Data Model Implementation Specification (North America) 3.5 outlines the data needed and the (global) SIF Infrastructure Implementation Specification 3.2.1 outlines how to move that data in a standardized manner.   The data “picture” alone is worth a look!

The US Department of Education’s Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) Project then utilized this work adding IEP information to their data model.  CEDS is a national collaborative effort to develop voluntary, common data standards for a key set of education data elements to streamline the exchange, comparison and understanding of data within and across P-20W institutions and sectors.  The CEDS stakeholder group reviewed the IEP work from federal law requirements lens, categories of data guided by the regulations, what kinds of elements might be needed locally to best carry-out processes and ensuring aligned definitions, option sets and context.

In the end, creating an effective IEP takes time, effort and patience. Technology tools on the market today should support this critical, yet complicated process.  Demanding a standardized approach to IEP tools can empower end users and enable marketplace creativity.   

For more information:

• Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community
  
• The SIF Data Model Implementation Specification (North America) 3.5
  
• Standardized IEP RFP wording
  
• Overview of SpecEd/IEP

SIF Data Model Specification (North America) 3.5 Adds Support for Individualized Education Plans

The Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community is happy to announce a major new addition to the SIF data model to support students with special needs. Comprising two major components, xIndividualizedEducationPlan and xIepTransfer, this release is the result of a two year effort led by TQ White II of the Central Minnesota Educational Research and Development Corporation (cmerdc.org) with the help of national experts in special education and data modeling. The effort is motivated by the recognized need to make a student’s individualized education plan (IEP) content available when a student transfers into a new school.

The new data models are intended to support three main use cases. 1) Immediate support for an administrator the very first time a student shows up in a new school. 2) Information to support the special education team as they adapt plans already in place to the resources and strategies of the receiving school. 3) Sufficient information for schools and districts to support reporting and resource management needs. The goal is to ensure that a school has the information needed to provide students having special needs with critical, ongoing services.

This new model is based on a thorough survey of the standard form sets published by nearly every state, as well as the federal government. They were categorized into representative groups for an exhaustive inventory of data and evaluation of documentation strategies. With the input of a workgroup averaging about ten people, a structured hierarchy of elements was developed and refined. Once done, the work was passed to Jill Parkes, education data analyst at CEDS (Common Educational Data Standards), a federal organization that develops a dictionary of education related data definitions.

The CEDS process did two things. First, they evaluated each element in the new, tentative IEP data model and, where appropriate, attached a formal definition to it, either new or a reference to an existing definition. Then it was put into the formal CEDS community review. CEDS stakeholders, especially those with an interest in special education, reviewed the new definitions and approved them. This discussion improved confidence in the data design and made it more complete.

After this information was added to the XML, the data model was formally moved into the Access for Learning community review process. Though a number of people offered comments on the XML, the main process involved TQ making presentations to various groups explaining the process and product in detail. Many valuable comments were made that resulted in changes but two contributions were especially important.

First was by Megan Gangl, a co-worker of TQ’s at cmERDC. Megan has spent her entire career as special education worker, case manager and trainer of case managers. Her decades of experience brought many new details to the model, suggested reorganization of some parts and validated others. She identified missing details, helped to rename elements and refine both their data definitions and the explanations of their meanings. After the initial presentation, she spent several days collaborating on the model in detail. Once done, confidence in the usefulness, correctness and completeness of the model was again tremendously improved.

The day before community review started in October, a new person, Danielle Norton, joined the North American Technical Board. Danielle’s team contributed to the community review with sessions including the detailed overview presentation and discussions with various subgroups of her team. A particularly important contribution was made by Rick Shafer, a long experienced data architect, who noted some problems with normalization in the data model.

The initial motivation for this IEP effort was to support the transfer of students between schools or districts. Throughout the process, the foremost intention was to provide complete information for the receiving educational agency. As a consequence, the new data model included data elements that were duplicates of things that are defined elsewhere in SIF. That is, it was badly de-normalized. It made it so that the element would provide a complete picture for a receiving district but was ill-suited for use as a local SIF entity object.

To solve this problem, the data model was split into two elements, xIndividualizedEducationPlan and xTransferIep. The former is completely normalized to serve as a formal entity. No data is represented that is defined elsewhere in SIF but is, instead, referenced with a refId. If a receiving program needs to know those details, it is expected to query the appropriate system for details.

The latter is conceived as a reporting object, i.e., it is intended to wrap information that is defined elsewhere for convenient use. The xTransferIep includes structures that allow it to contain data referenced in the IEP that would otherwise require a query to a system to which the receiving organization may not have access. The xTransferIep is a complete representation of an IEP containing all details.

In this process, a new concept was added to SIF, the typed refId. Troubled by the fact that refIds inside the IEP provided no information about where the target information referenced by the refId could be found, TQ added several new data types to the data model. Each is a UUID (as is the generic refId) but each also included documentation elements that explain what the UUID refers to and where the data can be found. For example, one of the new types, iepCommonStudentContactRefIdPointerType, explains that it references a contact (parent or guardian) inside a student object, distinct from iepCommonContactRefIdPointerType, which points to an independent xContactType, e.g., service provider or doctor, somewhere else.

The last thing is that, with the help of Access for Learning’s John Lovell, the new data models were refined to fit the new xPress object strategy. It does not use XML attributes and refIds are only present for elements that need it. This allows easier use of the model in non-Java/.NET systems. xPress is a more recent addition to SIF 3 and has proven to be easier to work with and, consequently, more popular. It is expected that xPress will be the foundation of new infrastructure work to formally bring JSON into the data model.

As with any first effort, it is fully understood by TQ and the entire community that as this data model comes into actual use, shortcomings will be noted and new ideas will be conceived. It is intended that the SpecEd/IEP workgroup will reconvene in the future to evaluate the results of implementation. That is to say that, as with the rest of SIF, the new IEP data models being released with SIF Data Model Specification (North America) 3.5 are not the end of the effort to better support students with special needs. This release is the beginning of an ongoing effort to insure that SIF is able to help schools, districts and teachers have the information needed to support optimal educational outcomes and to allow students with special needs to have the brightest possible future.

For even more information, a video recording of the IEP Data Model Overview is available here. To contact TQ White II, email him at tqwhite@erdc.k12.mn.us.

To review the SIF Data Model Implementation Specification (North America) 3.5, please go to: https://www.a4l.org/page/DataModelNA

When to choose a SIF 3 Data Model for your U.S. based interoperability solution

For the last few years when people would ask me, “SIF 2 or SIF 3?”  My answer was a simple one, “SIF 3, if you have a choice.”  This would facilitate two additional questions, “Why?” and “Why might I not have a choice?”  To the first, I’d say something like, “The infrastructure in SIF 3 is so much more approachable than in SIF 2, it is no contest.”  For the second, I’d explain that SIF 2 has a much bigger install base.  So if you are looking to get at data, you probably need to stick with SIF 2.  If you have been following this blog, you know that SIF (North America) 2.8 makes running that SIF 2 data over the SIF 3 infrastructure much easier.  So it seems I need a new answer to, “SIF 2 or SIF 3?”

So what are the strengths of a SIF 3 data model? 

Let’s start with my eight favorite objects in SIF 3, collectively known as xPress Roster.
Why are they my favorite? Adoption, this is the chunk of SIF 3 data model where you can enjoy that simpler infrastructure today. 
Why is this what has been adopted?  There are lots of good reasons: these objects were built to address the most common use cases in K12, these objects are the most tightly defined, these objects work well as XML or JSON, these objects have the most complete documentation, and these objects have published Service Paths, so this is where you should start looking at a SIF 3 data model.  However there are other bright spots...

I believe Student Record Exchange (SRE) has gone underappreciated.  People hear “student record exchange” and they tend to interpret it as “transcript,” nothing could be further from the truth.  The xPress SRE object roles up most of the data you would find in xPress Roster, adds some other things, and then provides that package to a new school.  The new school gets a lot more than a transcript and the student gets a more seamless educational experience.  Pair this up with the new xPress Individualized Education Plan (IEP) object and you have done everyone who needs to deal with transfer students a big favor.  But what does the SIF 3 data model offer, no matter which pieces are needed?

It seems the reason States approach us about our SIF 3 data model is its included mappings to the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS).  In fact CEDS is built into our SIF 3 data model culture, not just using it in our attempt to be CEDS 'on the wire', but also contributing to it.  In fact IEP is just now in Community Review, because we first contributed new elements to CEDS so we could publish them alongside our new object.  If you need CEDS today, there is no better option than a SIF 3 data model.

SIF 2 or SIF 3?  I will be happy to help you chose the right tool for the job.

For more information on SIF 3, please go to:  https://www.A4L.org/page/Infrastructure

For more information on the SIF Data Model Specification (North America) 2.8, please go to:  https://www.A4L.org/page/DataModelNA

To find out more about the Community Review, please go to:  https://www.a4l.org/news/371651/COMMUNITY-REVIEW-SIF-Data-Model-Specification-North-America-3.5-now-open.htm  (The Community Review is only available to A4L Community members, and is open from October 30, 2017 - November 24, 2017 (inclusive)).

Call for Volunteers

Now the kids are on the way back (or already are back) to school, there are a number of groups looking for additional volunteers to kick-start the new term - could you help? If you are interested in any of the following groups, please go to the group page and 'Join Group' or contact Penny Murray:

GLOBAL GROUPS:

• Marketing:  The initial focus for this group will be on ensuring that the Vendor Marketplace (more info) is providing the correct level of value-add for membership.  In addition, this group will be looking at several marketing strategies and collateral pieces being prepared for publication. We anticipate calls will start mid-September, so register your interest and join the group today: http://www.A4L.org/group/Marketing
  
• Data Privacy:  This group is currently focussing on 'implementing privacy controls'.  Interested? Then join this group today: http://www.a4l.org/group/DataPrivacy
• Identity:  Anyone interested in Identity Management should contact us to get involved!
• Infrastructure:  We are always looking for additional international Community Members to add to this group, ensuring that the Infrastructure Specification stays firmly positioned for the global marketplace. Join the group today: http://www.a4l.org/group/Infrastructure

NORTH AMERICAN GROUPS:

• Quest for Excellence: The North American Technical Board (NATB) is in the process of launching their “Quest for Excellence” team, focusing on filling in the various gaps present in the SIF 3 data model.  We are very happy to announce that MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Data Quality Analyst Glenn King has agreed to head the group.  He will bring the perspective of a state considering the move to SIF 3 to the table.  We hope that more states along with districts and vendors will want to participate in this work.  This is a great opportunity to learn about SIF and data models while contributing domain knowledge to the community. The first call is being scheduled for September 26, so register your interest and join the group today: http://www.A4L.org/group/QuestforExcellence
• xPress: If you are interested in xPress, looking to utilize or develop it and would like to participate in this group, please contact us.
• IEP-SRE: Following up the great work done by TQ which has been included in CEDS v7 and is being developed for the next SIF Data Model Specification (NA) 3.5 release, please contact us if you would like to get involved!

GLOBAL NETWORKS:

These groups are slightly different from our traditional 'working groups'.  Network groups are less formal and endeavour to bring together like minded people for a wider discussion and network opportunities across Communities.

• Open Source Developers: Interested in Open Source?  This group is currently looking at the CEDS NDS Adaptor, but will be moving onto wider topics shortly. Join this group today: http://www.a4l.org/group/OpenSourceDev
• End Users Data Integration: We all have to find the best way to integrate data between applications, whether we are using a SIF interface or other. This is the place to contact other data integrators, whether you work for a school district or support on as a consultant or product vendor. The purpose of the group is to share expertise with integration products. We want this to be a product-agnostic site – product vendors are our best integrators; share your tips and tricks, but please don’t advertise on the site.  To get involved: http://www.a4l.org/group/DataIntegration
• Open Strategic Collaboration:  The Open Strategic Collaboration Network has been established to provide a forum for A4L Community Members to discuss external standards and consider their inclusion in the SIF Specification. This group is open to all members of the global A4L Community.  Join the conversation here: http://www.A4L.org/group/OSCN
  

For more information on how to join a group, please go to: http://www.a4l.org/page/GettingStarted