State Extension Optimization for Vendor Cost Reduction
Discover about the Ed-Fi Alliance's work in 2024 for seeking opportunities to strengthen the use of Unifying Data Model and reducing implementation and operation costs for vendors.
Intro
In 2024, the Ed-Fi Alliance conducted a thorough assessment of the implementation and extension of its Unifying Data Model (Ed-Fi UDM, a.k.a. Ed-Fi core model) across state-wide implementations. The primary objective was to identify deviations from the Ed-Fi UDM and promote a more standardized use of the model. This initiative is intended to help vendors reduce their implementation and operational costs, thereby simplifying their decision to expand the Ed-Fi community by partnering with additional states. The analysis provided valuable insights into adoption trends and identified opportunities for enhanced standardization. Ed-Fi Alliance produced detailed reports for each state, highlighting areas for better alignment with the core model and updating the Ed-Fi UDM to reflect common use cases identified through this analysis. In 2025, Ed-Fi Alliance plans to collaborate with all Ed-Fi states to discuss state-specific improvement opportunities and develop actions towards the standardized use of the Ed-Fi UDM. Furthermore, the Alliance will enhance the documentation of best practices in employing the Ed-Fi UDM. This method will fulfill the primary objective of lowering implementation and operational costs of vendors.
Findings
State implementation analyses highlighted that Ed-Fi states frequently developed extensions to meet specific requirements not addressed by the core model. These extensions encompassed areas such as special education, student transportation, assessment administration, and career pathways. For example, Texas introduced numerous extensions, including 20 new entities and 491 attributes, covering accountability data, special education, and finance. Conversely, states like South Carolina and Wisconsin concentrated on more targeted extensions, such as assessment administration and immunization records.
Common themes across states included some detailed tracking of special education programs, student enrollment, and attendance. States like Arizona, Delaware, and Georgia created extensions for school and section enrollments, discipline, and student program evaluations. Similarly, Indiana and Kansas focused on alternative education programs, curricular material assistance, and CTE instruction and certification. Minnesota and Nebraska addressed needs in course offerings, discipline, post-graduation activities, and crisis events.
The following graph is to visualize these differences between states implementing Ed-Fi Data Standard. On the horizontal axis it shows the number of entities each state uses from the Ed-Fi UDM and the number of entities created as state extension are shown on the vertical axis.
Click here for a larger view of the chart
The size of bubbles represents the API level extension dependency rate of each state. This rate is calculated by dividing the number of core entities each state uses by the total number of entities they had in their implementation of Ed-Fi Data Standard. The median number of extensions among states is calculated as 16 were median number of Ed-Fi API used was 36. As seen in the graph Michigan has the highest extension dependency rate while South Carolina has the smallest. The median extension dependency for these states has been calculated as 37%.
These extensions analyzed carefully and recommendations were made to Ed-Fi states for better alignment with the Ed-Fi UDM. Some of these recommendations are about utilizing existing core attributes where possible, migrating to newer versions of the Ed-Fi data model, and reviewing and updating definitions. The Ed-Fi Alliance also explored consolidating extensions and collaborating with states to identify commonalities for core model inclusion. Numerous community members have expressed a keen interest in gaining a deeper understanding of this finding and have conveyed their intention to the Ed-Fi Alliance to reduce their dependency on extensions. This visual provides a concise overview of the Ed-Fi Alliance’s findings on the usage of the Ed-Fi UDM and the dependency on extensions among Ed-Fi partner states. More details for each state's implementation of Ed-Fi data model can be found in the reports at the bottom of the page.
Conclusion
As a result, the Ed-Fi Alliance extended the capacity of the Ed-Fi UDM in Data Standard v5.1 and v5.2 to include student health, transportation, assessment registration, and Section 504 programs. Additionally, the Alliance initiated an overhaul of domain-specific best practices and business rules guidance, which will continue in 2025 (see for examples: Enrollment domain, Alternative and supplemental services, Assessment registration, Student Attendance, Teaching and Learning).
What's Next
Moving forward, the Ed-Fi Alliance will continue to work with state educational agencies (SEAs) to improve their alignment with the Ed-Fi UDM, update the model to reflect on common usage of extension, and extend the documentation of domain specific best practice guidance. With these strategies, Ed-Fi Alliance intends to provide best opportunities for vendors to reduce their Ed-Fi implementation and operation costs.