Data Standards Galore
Is there really a problem with different student data standards?
Over the years I have been in many conversations where I am explaining the work that Double Line does. Many times I have heard (along with gratuitous eye rolls) “Oh no, not another data standard” or “Really? How is this different from [insert name here]?”. The most recent which was a real doozie was “After all of these years someone hasn’t solved that? There are a lot of companies doing that already, how is this different?”. Each time I explain the differences, I am always left thinking to myself, does it really matter that there are others?
Before there are any slurs hurled my way, yes, I get why there should be a single standard and the benefits behind it. But dare I say, that it is ok to have multiple ones as each one was developed for a particular purpose. I doubt someone woke up one morning and decided they needed their own data standard just because it would be a nice to have. Each one was developed for a specific purpose and solves a specific use case. I think it is ok to have multiple ones and you can use them for their intended purpose.
For instance, if we look at the Common Education Data Standard (CEDS), it covers a vast amount of data points and reporting across the P-20W institutions and sectors. It is looking at these data points and at the aggregate which defines and describes a common vocabulary, so this lends itself well to federal, state and accountability reporting. Taking a look at Attendance, we know it is very important to track attendance as it is associated to funding, accountability metrics, and student tracking. CEDS has attendance at the Organization and the student’s role within that organization. This is because in accountability reporting it is important to have the student associated to the organization that the is responsible for their attendance.
A data standard like the Ed-Fi Data Standard (Ed-Fi) is at a much more granular in the data points and specifically covers K-12 with minor data points in Early Learning and Post Secondary. With attendance in Ed-Fi, it is looking at it through a much more detailed lens and wants to know where the actual attendance is being tracked, either at the School, Section/Class Room, Program or Intervention.
When evaluating what is needed for an implementation or specific product, it is important to understand it’s intended purpose. Once the purpose is known, then look for the best solution. I think many times when a new technology is developed or discovered, too often the notion of “How can I use this?” or “This is great let’s develop something around it” is used to force a problem to come to light. This is a backwards way of trying to solve problems. I wholeheartedly believe in discovering the problem and what needs to be done, then find the right solution. If you are developing a data mart or reporting solution, then your structure and definition may lend itself well to CEDS. This is because CEDS has summarized definitions like Number of Days in Attendance and Number of Days Absent. These types of measures lends itself well to a data mart or data warehouse. If you are looking for more of transactional structure, then Ed-Fi might be best suited as it has detail level structures.
After years of solving data integration problems for States and Districts, I have come to realize that fitting a square peg into a round hole doesn’t always work. I think that it is quite alright to have different data standards, that can work together, and help solve specific use cases. Each one has it’s own expertise and can solve the intended use case well. The key factor in this revelation is that they must also work together and have some overlap. I think the working groups and each standards’ body is doing a great job working, discussing, and iterating together to ensure interoperability. This makes it easier for an implementer like Double Line to chose the right technology for our customers.
