This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Print Page | Contact Us | Sign In | Join the A4L Community
Chapter/Locale: North America
Group HomeGroup Home Blog Home Group Blogs
All things relating to the North American A4L Community.... don't forget to check out the blogs on the global/locale Communities too! | Global: http://www.a4l.org/blogpost/1546358/Chapter-Locale-Global | Australia: http://www.a4l.org/blogpost/1545371/Chapter-Locale-Australia | United Kingdom: http://www.a4l.org/blogpost/1545553/Chapter-Locale-United-Kingdom

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: 2018  North America  2017  elections  IEP  Individualized Education Plan  Specification  A4L Community  Community  Data Model  SIF 2  SIF 3  technical  2.8  2019  at risk  CEDS  event  global  Iowa  Massachusetts  NCES Forum  real-time reporting  Request for Proposal  RFP  Roster  SDPC  SIF Specification  SpecEd  SRE 

Call for volunteers: North American 2019 Elections Committee

Posted By Penny Murray, Wednesday, November 14, 2018

VolunteersCall for volunteers: North American 2019 Elections Committee

The A4L Community are seeking members to serve on the North American (NA) Elections Committee. As a Committee member you will be helping the A4L Community by overseeing the election process, assisting in conducting the election process and reviewing the policies and procedures on behalf of the Association members.

For the 2019 SIF Association NA Annual Election process, there will be three (3) Committee meetings scheduled.  If you are interested in serving on the NA Elections Committee, please contact Penny Murray by Tuesday 27 November 2018.

Tags:  2019  A4L Community  elections  North America 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

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

Posted By Administration, Friday, September 7, 2018

Iowa_DoERequest 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.

 

Tags:  2018  Iowa  Request for Proposal  RFP 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Why Put Students in Harm’s Way – Twice?!?

Posted By Larry Fruth, Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Updated: Thursday, July 26, 2018

Why Put Students in Harm’s Way – Twice?!?

signOne of my most memorable professional moments occurred years ago in DC education meetings when a large room of teachers and policy makers were discussing the concept of “at risk” learners and the various educational strategies that can be employed to address this “subset” of kids.  One educator stood up in front of the room and stated, “I just want you to know that ours school recently found out that all kids are “at risk” – I teach at Columbine High School”.  Yes this was 1999.

We all know very clearly now that our definitions of “at risk” has changed to not only mean academic oriented activities but now must include physical and emotional well being.  Some of these are under their control and some aren’t.  Take for an example last year’s hurricane Category 5 hurricane Irma, the most powerful ever to hit the Atlantic, which devastated most of the Caribbean including plunging more than 1 million citizens of Puerto Rico into darkness.  This put all Puerto Rican leaners “at risk” and many families fled the islands for the US mainland.

One of the major landing point, due to many familial cultural and established networks were the states of Texas, Florida…. and Massachusetts!   These learners entered into established local and state educational institutions – many of which were not ready to address this influx in numbers and needs for these new learners.   An example of one state who utilized K12 community built open standards for data management was the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and their use of the Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) Specifications built by the Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community.

“This year, our statewide usage of the SIF standard has been so valuable in our ability to track and budget for Puerto Rican migration as a result of Hurricane Irma”, states Rob Curtin, Associate Commissioner Data & Accountability, MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. “We have had over 3000 students arrive in our state and we have used our real-time SIF reporting capabilities to provide weekly updates to the Governor’s office.  This was critical information for policymakers in how best to support the schools receiving and educating these new students.”

So add “environmental incidents” to the list creating “at risk” learners for all of our schools!

 

About the SIF Specification
The SIF Specification is not a product, but a technical blueprint for enabling diverse applications to interact and share data related to educational entities in instructional and administrative environment.  To find out more about either the SIF (global) Infrastructure or any of the locale-specific SIF Data Models, please go to: https://www.a4l.org/page/SIFSpecifications

 

 

Tags:  2018  at risk  Massachusetts  real-time reporting  SIF Specification  student mobility 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)

Posted By Penny Murray, Wednesday, March 28, 2018

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.

20yrsOfChangeInSpecEd

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:

 

 

Tags:  2018  IEP  Individualized Education Plan 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

2018 North American Elections: Nominations open!

Posted By Penny Murray, Saturday, January 13, 2018
Updated: Friday, January 12, 2018

2018 North American Elections: Nominations open!

Nominations for the North American Management Board and North American At-Large Technical Board are now available.  Nominations will be open from January 12 - February 9, 2018 (inclusive).  

The North American Management Board is elected for two-year terms.  This year there will be eight (8) seats open for the North American Management Board.  To be eligible to run for the North American Management Board, the individuals shall be at least eighteen (18) years old and be A4L Community Voting Participants or employed by or representing an A4L Community Voting Participant and duly authorized to represent that A4L Community Voting Participant, but need not be residents of the District of Columbia.  An A4L Community Voting Participant Member institution (including associated subsidiaries of an A4L Community Voting Participant) may have at most one representative on the North American Management Board at one time. 

Those North American Management Board Members that are serving their second year of a two-year term and will be returning to the North American Management Board for 2018 include:

  • George Gatsis, Follett School Solutions
  • Mike Nutter, Vinson Consulting
  • Stevin Smith, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
  • Brian Townsend, Vermont Agency of Education 

The North American At-Large Technical Board is elected for a one-year term.  There are four (4) seats open for the At-Large Technical Board members. North American At-Large Technical Board members must be A4L Community Voting Participants or employed by or represent an A4L Community Voting Participant and duly authorized to represent that A4L Community Voting Participant. 

You can download the policies and procedures for the Annual Elections as outlined by the Elections Committee at:  http://www.a4l.org/resource/collection/A9C4A195-5E79-4EF1-9121-DB4C382533F3/2018_North_American_Board_Elections_Process_and_Policies_FINAL.pdf (login required).  

For the 2018 A4L Community Annual Election process, the following dates apply:

  • January 12, 2018: Nominations open
  • February 9, 2018: Nominations close
  • February 14, 2018: Elections Committee convenes to confirm ballot
  • February 21, 2018: Ballot released
  • March 14, 2018: Voting closes at 5:00 pm Eastern
  • March 14, 2018: Elections Committee convenes to confirm results
  • March 15, 2018: Elections results announced during the (NA) Annual Meeting 

The A4L Community will be using a virtual election tool and all nominations must be submitted electronically.  Nomination information will be sent to all North American A4L Community members via email.  Please consider nominating yourself or someone else to run for one of these leadership positions.  The Primary Business Contact will be the official vote for each A4L Community Voting Participant.  Please contact Penny Murray to confirm your Primary Business Contact. 

Sincerely, 
Larry L. Fruth II, Ph.D.
Executive Director/CEO
A4L Community

 

North American A4L Community members can find nomination information here >>
(login required)

 

 

Tags:  2018  elections  North America 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

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

Posted By Penny Murray, Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Updated: Thursday, December 14, 2017

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

SIFSpecThe 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

 

 

Tags:  Data Model  IEP  Individualized Education Plan  SIF 3  SpecEd  Specification 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

2018 North American Elections

Posted By Penny Murray, Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Updated: Thursday, December 14, 2017

Announcement to A4L Community membership

2018ElectionsNAThe Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community has continued to have phenomenal leadership over the past year.  The leadership, guidance and overall dedication to the Community prove critical to our collective successes. With the upcoming Annual Meeting, it is hard to believe that it is time for elections again!  Nominations for the North American Management Board and At-Large Technical Board will be available from January 12 – February 9, 2018 (inclusive).

The Management Board is elected for two-year terms.  This year there will be seven (7) seats open for the Management Board.  To be eligible to run for the Management Board, the individuals shall be at least eighteen (18) years old and be A4L Community Voting Participants or employed by or representing an A4L Community Voting Participant and duly authorized to represent that A4L Community Voting Participant, but need not be residents of the District of Columbia.  An A4L Community Voting Participant Member institution (including associated subsidiaries of an A4L Community Voting Participant) may have at most one representative on the Management Board at one time.

The At-Large Technical Board is elected for a one-year term.  There are four (4) seats open for the At-Large Technical Board members.  At-Large Technical Board members must be A4L Community Voting Participants or employed by or represent an A4L Community Voting Participant and duly authorized to represent that A4L Community Voting Participant.

You can download the policies and procedures for the Annual Elections as outlined by the Elections Committee on the A4L Community Site here (login required).
 
For the 2018 A4L Community North American Annual Election process, the following dates apply:

  • December 19, 2017: Announcement to membership that elections will occur
  • January 12, 2018: Nominations open
  • February 9, 2018: Nominations close
  • February 14, 2018: Elections Committee convenes to confirm ballot
  • February 21, 2018: Ballot released
  • March 14, 2018: Voting closes at 5:00 pm Eastern
  • March 14, 2018: Elections Committee convenes to confirm results
  • March 15, 2018: Elections results announced during the (NA) Annual Meeting

Any queries regarding the elections policies & procedures, please contact Larry Fruth.

 

Tags:  2018  Community  elections  North America 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

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

Posted By Penny Murray, Wednesday, November 8, 2017
Updated: Tuesday, November 7, 2017

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

SIFSpecification

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)).

 

 

Tags:  CEDS  Data Model  IEP  Individualized Education Plan  Roster  SIF 2  SIF 3  Specification  SRE  Student Record Exchange  technical  xPress 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

SIF Data Model Implementation Specification (North America) 2.8

Posted By Penny Murray, Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Updated: Tuesday, October 31, 2017

SIF Data Model Implementation Specification (North America) 2.8 

SIFSecification  1.  A clear path forward.
          > If SIF Specification (NA) 2.7M wasn’t enough, this further encourages hybrid zones to support SIF 2 and 3 infrastructures simultaneously.
          > Those not ready to move on should still move forward.

          >  Allows applications already supporting the SIF 2 data model to take advantage of the SIF 3 infrastructure.

  2.  Built from 2.7M for an “as good as it gets” backwards compatible experience.
  3. Upgraded to Venetian Blind Schemas for the best tool support.
  4.  Published like a SIF (NA) 3 data model to encourage adoption to the SIF 3 infrastructure.


The SIF Data Model Specification (NA) 2.8 release is important for applications that already support the SIF 2 data model and haven’t yet taken advantage of the SIF 3 infrastructure.  The North American Technical Board (NATB) set out to have their 2.8 release be as close as possible on the wire to SIF Data Model Specification (NA) 2.7M.  This means that backwards compatibility is maximized while the amount of work existing applications have to do is minimized.  This is also realized through a complete rewrite of our XML Schemas to adhere to the “venetian blind” design pattern

In case you are unaware of what “venetian blind” does for you, allow me to explain.  It turns out XML Schema is a vast specification; so almost all tools that support it, support a subset of it.  Our goal is to have our specifications utilized, so we try to figure out what pieces are best supported and build our specifications using exclusively those parts.  So SIF Data Model Specification (NA) 2.8 has an unprecedented level of tools compatibility for a SIF Data Model Specification (NA) 2.x release, making its use with the SIF 3 infrastructure a lot easier.

This helps pave the way for those who provide infrastructure solutions to the marketplace to offer hybrid zones.  Where, in this case, you have one style of data model supported by two styles of infrastructure.  Together this enables those with existing zones to upgrade one application at a time, gaining the advantages of the SIF 3 infrastructure while maintaining data interoperability.

Those not ready to move on should still move forward...

To find out more about the SIF Data Model Specification (North America), please go to: http://www.a4l.org/page/DataModelNA

 

 

Tags:  2.8  2017  SIF 2  Specification  technical 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Call for Volunteers!

Posted By Penny Murray, Thursday, August 31, 2017
Updated: Wednesday, August 30, 2017

 

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 IntegrationWe 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

 

Tags:  2017  Community  global  volunteer 

Share |
PermalinkComments (1)
 
Page 1 of 2
1  |  2
  • SIF Association (dba Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community)

  • PO Box 1024, New Albany, Ohio 43054-1024

  • Phone: +1.202.621.0547

  • Fax: +1.202.289.7097