EDFacts Shared State Solution (ES3)An Open Source Approach to doing EDFactsAn Update

26th Annual MIS ConferenceFebruary 13, 2013

1

Original EDFacts Data Flow

2

ES3 Architecture/Data Flow

3

EDFacts Submission Data

Why a Third Party Had To Do This• States have been more than willing to share their efforts

– State Specific Codes or Assumptions Built into the Routines– Documentation is “Spotty”– Most Solutions not Designed for Easy Customization

• ESP Had To Do This– Multiple Clients– Multiple Approaches– Each a “Work for Hire” with Public Funds– Deep Understanding of the Pain

4

State Customization• State Config (each Reporting Year)

– State Name, Postal Code, State Agency Number– Root Path to File Storage Directory– Email Notification “From:” Address

• State Characteristics– Charter Schools– Grade 13, Ungraded Allowed

• State Code Translation Table– Reporting Period– Code Set Name– State Code– EDFacts Code

5

State Customization (con’t)• Submission File Characteristics

– EDFacts Settings: Header Record File Name, Header Record File Type, Data Record Table Name

– Submission File Subdirectory– Zip File Password (optional)– Invalid Records File Name

• SSIS Configuration– Database Locations– Reporting Period– Success and Error Email Recipients (To and CC)

6

Consistent and Robust Template

7

Web Front-end Being Developed

8

Features• Standard Microsoft Stack• Very Modular• Customization for a Specific State Compartmentalized• Lots of “Eyes”• Email Notification of Processing Results• Attachments are Zipped and Can be Password

Protected• System Logging• Validation Reports• Management and Operational Reports

9

Progress• 70 submission packages developed off of 15 unit record

staging tables• Additional submissions from state aggregate data

sources• Success with multiple data source types:

– SQL Server– Oracle– Excel– Access– Text Files

10

Lessons Learned• Directory• Code Sets

– Inconsistent across state systems– Translation is one-way

• Core EDFacts from far fewer staging tables• SLDS may not be ready on our schedule• Getting coordinator support in heat of submission cycle

– Next few months will tell us if better off cycle• Need to be better at collaborating with state partners

– The source queries– Staging designs

• Not everyone does what they are “supposed” to– Added staging flags for “include” at each level, submission

11

Plans and Schedule• Finish Final 17 Files Due Now through June• Back-fill Files Skipped Over in the “Heat of the Moment”• Expand and Install UI at States• Build Review and Validation Reports• Build Management Reports

12

Benefits• Based on CEDS and Other National Standards• Shared Risk with Other States

– MO, SD, ID, TN, USVI• Minimized and Shared Maintenance• You Own and Can Manage• Multiple Users and Development• External Coordinator Back-up

• Distributable File Creation

13

ESP EDFacts Experience• Ground Floor EDEN/EDFacts Design Support to USED• Designed and Built the EDFacts XML Validation

Schemas and XSLT Transform system• EDEN State Site Visits (2003 and 2004)• Multi-state EDFacts Reporting

– (DE, LA, NC, NH)• SEISS Team

Nobody Has More Experience

14

Contact InformationTom OgleMissouri Dept of Elementary and Secondary Educationtom.ogle@dese.mo.gov

Judy MerrimanSouth Dakota Dept of Educationjudy.merriman@state.sd.us

Joyce Popp,Idaho State Dept of EducationJpopp@sde.Idaho.gov

Steven KingESP Solutions Group

sking@espsg.com

15