Roxanne Pompilio - EDL 680

EDL 680 Final REflection and Discovery—Module 16

5/3/2015

I will truly miss this course. It has been both challenging and rewarding. I definitely learned a lot. As I compiled my final project, I found myself reflecting on each of the modules. It has definitely been a journey of discovery. To think that when I started the course, I was grappling with the definition of Enterprise Architecture and its application in education. Although EA methodology draws upon previous concepts I had heard of, it definitely changed the way I look at my school site and the district. Like an architect, I feel like I am part of the design and have a desire to see the plan succeed. Through a closer look at site and district architectures, I gained a much better understanding of why it is important to have an EA plan that is aligned with the vision and goals of the enterprise, and the importance of effectively communicating with stakeholders. Another discovery was the importance of creating an inventory of applications and criteria for when applications need to be update or eliminated, and at what point an entire overhaul becomes necessary. Finally, one of my favorite assignments in the course was designing a technology brick. This was both unique and fun.

Discoveries:
1. EA changed the way at look at education and my role in it. I now see both my school site and the district differently. A much broader view of how everything fits together.
2. A better understanding of why it is important to have an EA plan that is aligned with the goals of the enterprise.
3. The importance of effective communication and transparency.
4. An inventory of applications and criteria matter.
5. It’s fun to build a brick.

As an educator, I plan to use some of the EA processes I learned in my instructional practices. For example, the brick process can be used to determine which instructional practices are no longer working and which strategies might be better to deploy. As an educational technology leader, the EA course has changed the way I view the importance of planning for the future and that it is even more important to communicate effectively and efficiently, and to include stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Reflecting on Enterprise Architecture Governance—Module 15

5/2/2015

Primary and Supporting Contributors to EA Governance

Executive and stakeholder involvement in EA governance are critical. The executive provides the strategic elements necessary that give direction, identify goals, and establish objectives for the enterprise. “Strategic elements translate into both procedural and tactical elements” such as procurement policies and procedures, mission statements, enterprise direction (NASCIO EA Tool-Kit, p.40). Without a strong executive, implementing technology might not relate to the goals of the organization and result in the enterprise not achieving success. Stakeholder involvement in the Architecture Governance elements is also critical because stakeholders provide necessary check and balances to hold the organization accountable and compliant. Stakeholders such as executives, department managers, IT staff, vendors providing technology solutions, and other identified individuals, also help ensure that communications are delivered in a timely manner. Lack of stakeholder involvement runs the risk of a lack of communication and transparency, less oversight of decision-making process, and a greater number of errors, expenses, and redundancy. Inclusion of stakeholders in Architecture Governance encourages integration and alignment of future designs and anticipated needs of the enterprise (future state). In addition, in terms of the increase importance of big data in education, it is important to include Subject Matter Experts, in this case a Data Steward in EA governance. Data governance (rules for data structures, access, and security) should be integrated along side EA governance to reduce the risk of errors and maximize efficiency.

References:
Education Enterprise Architecture Guidebook, Section, pp.16-20 and Appendix H Selecting a Segment Architecture Project Team http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/education-architecture-guidebook.pdf

NASCIO EA Tool-Kit Version 3.0—Introduction and Governance, pp.38-52. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B80Te2FmrBXmQWVDUmJYNTU4ZU0/edit?pli=1

Reflecting on the phases of EA Implemenation—Module 14

4/26/2015

In exploring a comprehensive methodology for the implementation of an EA program, all four phases of the EA plan are important for planning and for decision-making. In terms of which of the four phases will provide the greatest challenge for my school district, it is difficult to select only one phase. The first phase which serves to establish an EA program appears fairly clear. The only challenge in this phase might be creating an EA governance capability that integrates with other IT management processes and a communication plan that is clear for all stakeholders and transparent. This seems less of an issue now that my district has reorganized many of its departments and the structure is clearer and more transparent than previous years. Phase II, which is designed to select an EA framework, components, and software applications to automate documentation of EA components will be a bit more challenging for larger school districts such as SDUSD. Particularly Step 7—Identifying the EA components to be documented. There are several older systems that are not part of the enterprise and a previous existing enterprise that appears to be in the process of being revitalized so it may involve additional steps. This will be much more involved and time consuming. And these steps also would have to be completed prior to Step 9—Selecting software applications/tools to support automated EA documentation. Phase III, which involves documenting the current and future state of the architecture and the development of the plan will not be as challenging, at least in terms of documenting the current state. With larger districts, documenting the future state is where the benefit lies to help avoid potential pitfalls and to allow more work to get done. Often it is the case that not enough planning goes into this phase or the updating piece in Phase IV falls through. Phase IV—Use and maintenance of the EA system, where the EA is used to support planning and decision-making and regular updates are performed is an area that will be challenging for my district, probably the greatest challenge given the size of district. This will probably need to done at least twice a year, maybe reviewed more often if there is a lot of employee turnover, a change in superintendent, or changes to the infrastructure. One of the challenges that SDUSD faces is aligning the EA plan with the vision and goals of the district and communicating updates to stakeholders when needed. Often EA links to other management processes are not well defined or integrated, and need to be adjusted to meet additional needs within the framework. Therefore, having a comprehensive plan in place that includes ongoing review and updates is necessary and perhaps time well spent. I see this as a challenge because the district is involved in several implementation projects over the next several years and I see EA links to these other processes critical. In terms of additional steps that can be taken to improve the success of Phase IV, having procedures in place that insure ongoing review, monitoring, reporting, and updating of the current and future state components, and a degree of control and oversight of each of the steps will help insure the EA plan is valuable for planning and decision-making.

Reflecting on "setting the Stage" for Enterprise Architecture–Module 13

4/19/2015

Given issues of interoperability, the need to automate educational processes, the growing need for components within the Enterprise to work together, as well as educational demands for student achievement, emphasis on big data, compliance with privacy laws, the need to reduce redundancy in applications, and the accountability piece (LCAP), the district educational plan needs to be integrated with the technology plan and not in isolation from it. In terms of SDUSD, there is starting to be improved communication and transparency between these departments (see Integrated Technology Support Services chart above), which is necessary both from a cost and efficiency standpoint and to avoid potential pitfalls as old systems are retired or modified and new systems are deployed. A recent area where I am observing an increase in communication and an attempt to integrate education and technology plans in the district is the alignment of the district’s vision 2020 and LCAP. The SDUSD development of the LCAP, the process involved, and its implementation appears to provide an opportunity for more groups/stakeholders to get involved and appears to be more transparent. The monthly updates on its implementation, which I mentioned in a previous post, are definitely refreshing. From what I can tell, there still needs to be better alignment between i21Now and the LCAP. In terms of curriculum and instruction, the Curriculum Office of Leadership and Learning is just now beginning to look to those from the Educational Technology Team for assistance. This was definitely not the case at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year.

References:

Education Enterprise Architecture Guidebook, Section 1 (p.15, pp.21-26) and Appendix B Resources for Documentation of Current and Future States. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/education-architecture-guidebook.pdf

Reflecting on the "brick" process—Module 12

4/11/2015

This week I worked through the process of creating a “brick” for Web Conferencing. The brick process is useful for technologists to document the current and future states of technology in order to best meet the technology architecture needs of an organization. Just like the brick process is useful to assess current and future technology needs, knowing what products or technologies to recommend for immediate use, over a five year period, or knowing what products or technologies need to be retired or are emerging, this same process could be used to improve instructional practices for teachers. This is particularly the case with educational technologies and the integration of these into lessons or units. For example, teachers can revamp lessons or units to better integrate new technology tools to impact teaching and learning. One model that is currently being used is the SAMR Model (The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition Model), which demonstrates how teachers can use technology to impact teaching and learning.

In the original lesson or unit, a teacher might have used computer technology to perform the same task that was done before the use of computers, such as printing out a worksheet for students to complete. Here there is no functional change in teaching and learning. Teachers instead might have students collaborating using a Google Doc online or taking a quiz using a Google Form in place of pencil and paper. This has the impact of immediate feedback in terms of the quiz, paper is saved, students are more engaged and collaboration becomes necessary to accomplish the task in a more meaningful way. Here the new technology tool is helping this to occur.

Teachers could also use the brick process to determine which instructional practices are no longer working and which strategies might be better to deploy, as well as a timeframe of when they might add additional strategies to their toolbox. In terms of program improvement, a brick would also allow teams of educators to create a plan over a five-year period for improving student achievement. For example, which student groups to target, what strategies teachers will deploy, which practices might be retired, and what technologies might be needed to improve student engagement.

References:
National Institute of Health Enterprise Architecture (2012) retrieved on Thursday, April 9 from https://enterprisearchitecture.nih.gov/Pages/WhatIsBrick.aspx and from https://enterprisearchitecture.nih.gov/Pages/listing.aspx?Section=Artifact&Category=Brick

EDL 680 Module 12 "Brick" Web Conferencing

Reflecting on SBAC Technical Readiness—Module 10

3/29/2015

Reflect on the work you did to collect information for the SBAC testing requirements. What stood out to you as key discoveries?

The Smarter Balanced Technology Strategy Framework and Testing Device Requirements are useful to determine technical readiness for the SBAC. I am not certain whether the framework was considered during the pilot last year or whether site administrators are aware of it. In terms of my own district, most school sites waited for instructions from the district. These instructions were rolled out at the last minute, resulting in many issues. This was particularly the case with the iPads. Our site followed the instructions we were given and were able to install the AIR Secure Test App and lock the App for the test. However, we were unable to unlock the App. As a result, all of the iPads used for the SBAC pilot had to be reimaged. This took a lot of time and prevented the devices from being used for instruction.

Given the importance of the SBAC and some of the issues SCPA experienced last year during the pilot, using a framework such as the one provided by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium is important. I can only hope that site administrators consider such standards important. Often times, decisions are made without understanding the importance of the technology piece. Using the framework will definitely help school sites plan for and be better prepared technologically for the SBAC.

The preliminary research I conducted I hope with help troubleshoot and prevent technical issues during the online SBAC testing scheduled for May 2015. It definitely helped in terms of planning and what the next steps might be for SCPA in preparing for the SBAC. I sent a copy of my report to my site administrators and to our IT director.

Overall, it was comforting to know that SCPA meets the technical readiness requirements and standards for the upcoming SBAC event in terms of operating systems and devices. This was initially a concern at the beginning of the school year when there were delays with the Lenovo Yoga 11e tablets being deployed. Without the Lenovo’s, SCPA may have been short devices that met SBAC technical requirements. A key discovery for me in this process was realizing the importance of having an updated inventory of devices, and operating systems the devices are running, as well as potential maintenance concerns. When I first presented the SBAC technical readiness framework to our IT director and asked about getting an inventory of devices, he mentioned this was going to take a lot of research and work to put together. Although he was able to quickly printout a spreadsheet of the number of and type of devices assigned to each classroom, it was unclear whether all devices were running the most recent operating systems. With the newer devices it was obvious, but with the iPad 2s, some were still running iOS 7, others were running iOS 8.1.1, and a few teachers had updated to the iOS 8.2 even though they were told not to do so. It was also difficult to get an exact count of keyboards and headphones. Also, when I mentioned concerns about the AIR Secure Test App and whether there might be issues this year, I was told it is supposed to work. I’m curious if anyone has tested it out? This is one of the reasons I included this in my recommendations. Another key discovery for me was the networks ability to meet the current number of users. I do not think site administrators consider this to be important or to be a potential issue, or that the recommended number might exist for a reason. I hope this is something the site coordinator takes into consideration when planning for this year’s exam. Our site IT director and I work well together, so I know he will take the recommendations seriously.

Reference:

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: The Smarter Balanced Technology Strategy Framework and Testing Requirements. August 1, 2014. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Tech_Framework_Device_Requirements_11-1-13.pdf

REflecting on an Application Rationale Approach—Module 9

3/21/2015

To be successful in meeting the needs of stakeholders, reduce redundancy in applications and costs, and achieve required outcomes for student achievement, it is important for leaders in education to use a criteria to determine priority and to assess the applications being deployed, determine readiness, or whether the application is to be retired. This involves an application strategy that provides consistency in analyzing applications across an organization, a strategy similar to what is being used to achieve business outcomes. Although such strategies are commonplace in the business environment, it appears somewhat delayed in education. Rather than using a criteria, a strategy or a rationalization educational leaders often discuss and evaluate applications without fully understanding the long-range planning risk or lack the needed information to make critical decisions. This results in applications that duplicate functions, additional maintenance costs, and maintaining older systems that should be retired. Scott Nelson (2010) in his piece on Application Overhaul, recommends an application overhaul for businesses applications to be included as part of the application strategy. A similar strategy should be used in education to improve educational programs, reduce costs, and meet achievement goals.

Applying this strategy with the educational application, Naviance assisted me to better understand the need for an Application Rationale Analysis and how this process provides a consistent strategy to make more informed decisions.

In moving forward with an Application Rationalization Process, I would recommend the following steps:

Inventory applications and determine which applications should be included.
Explain why an application rationale process is necessary and the ways it will benefit the school site or district.
Communicate with all stakeholders and gain "buy-in".
Provide a cost/benefit analysis of maintaining existing application, deploying new ones, and retiring old ones.

Reference:
Nelson, Scott D., (2010). Application Overhaul. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved on March 19, 2015 from http://www.gartner.com/it/initiatives/pdf/KeyInitiativeOverview_ApplicationOverhaul.pdf

Reflecting on the pros and cons of a "Single Sign-On" approach in education—Module 8

3/15/2015

Brief Introduction to Single Sign-On (SSO)
Single Sign-On (SSO) allows a single user access control of multiple related, but independent software systems. After the user logs in and is authenticated, the user has access to all of the related systems without being prompted again for re-authenticating for each system. Although a Single Sign-On has become an important part of the business world and many companies use either full sign-on, reduced sign-on, federated, or Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) for user authentication, what are the pros and cons of a “Single Sign-On” approach for a school district?[1]

Pro and Cons for a Single Sign-On (SSO) for a school district
As a user in an educational environment, I find having to use multiple logins or even having to re-enter passcodes frustrating. Not only do I have to allow additional time just to get up and running on my computer at work, I often find myself having to build-in class time to trouble-shoot anticipated technology issues. This has become less of the case with the capability of systems to remember passcodes, but can still be a frustrating experience. My current pet peeve involves having to constantly override the district firewall to access secured videos in My Big Campus (MBC). I realize this is a temporary problem that the district is working on and has mostly been the case this year, but it has reduced the use of MBC videos across the district because of the additional time required to get through the security filter. Another pet peeve is how quickly the user is timed out and has to re-authenticate. With attendance on PowerSchool, this occurs every class period.

From a student point of view, students have expressed frustration with password issues and logins for iPAD Apps. Most prefer to use their own mobile devices just in terms of saving time, particularly when it comes to uploading work. Some of the frustration has been reduced with students being able to use the same ID and password to log into the majority of software applications and Apps.

In terms of backoffice systems, district use of Oracle requires a single sign-on passcode that grants users to a basic user session. Once authenticated, the user has access to resources on the same domain, while access to a different domain will require cross-domain single sign-on to add additional protections.

As an educational technology leader, I understand the cons of a Single Sign-On in an educational environment, but at the same time I am excited about some of the alternatives being piloted in K-12 schools. For example, the Clever is currently being piloted in a few schools in San Francisco and appears to offer future opportunities for use of SSO. It is FERPA compliant and SOPIPA compliant, which is a concern in terms of using an SSO in K-12 education. So far it allows students and teachers to connect to more than 20 popular educational apps used in schools with just one login, including My Big Campus (MBC). It will be interesting to see where this goes in terms of security and privacy issues.

[1] The difference between full sign-on, reduced sign-on, federated, and SAML: Full sign-on allows a single user access to all associated systems without having to re-authenticate. If reduced sign-on is implemented, the user will be able to access all associated systems with the same username and password, but will have to re-enter their user name and password to re-authenticate for each system. Federated works the similar to full sign-on, at least at the front end, but is different on the backend in that if one authentication system fails, to user will be denied access to all systems. SAML is an XML standard that allows a secure web domain to exchange user authentication and data authorization and allows users access to a host of web-based applications such as Google Apps.

References:
Arizona Education Learning and Accountability System (AELAS) Business Case. Retrieved on March13, 2015 from http://www.azed.gov/aelas/files/2013/10/aelas-business-case-v1.5.pdf

Clever Opens Up ‘Instant Login’ to Any and All K-12 Districts. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from https://www.edsurge.com/n/2014-08-26-clever-opens-up-instant-login-to-any-and-all-k-12-districts

Houston, Robert. Single Sign on programs. Enter Your Information Blog. Retrieved from http://www.enteryourinformation.com/2015/01/20/single-sign-programs/
SAML Single Sign-On (SSO) Service for Google Apps (2015). Retrieved from https://developers.google.com/google-apps/sso/saml_reference_implementation

Single Sign-on Solutions Helping K-12 Teachers. EdTech Focus On K-12. Retrieved from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2014/05/single-sign-solutions-helping-k-12-teachers

Lee, Donald (2014). The Pros & Cons of Implementing Single Sign-On. Cyber Security Performance Blog. Neustar. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from https://www.neustar.biz/blog/what-is-single-sign-on-deployment-pros-cons

Reflecting on SOPIPA (Bill #1177)—Module 7

3/8/2015

The recent legislation, Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (SOPIPA), which aims at restricting the use of student data by third party vendors, raises a complex set of issues. SOPIPA was only enacted in 20 states. It is unclear what the consequences of non-compliance will be; that is, does responsibility for non-compliance fall on the school site, employees, or the district? SOPIPA seems far from clear on this point. Furthermore, SOPIPA does not appear to be attached to school funding such as LCFF or in all district LCAPs. Some of this might be due to the lack of awareness among district leaders of SOPIPA or uncertainty on how to respond. In addition, laws in place to compliment SOPIPA — such as the older law, FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) — are not adequately equipped to deal with the abundance of digital educational student data that exists today. What is required to address many of these issues are amendments to FERPA, a review of COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act), and additional legislation requiring parent consent of all data sharing that includes identifiable student data to draw an unambiguous line in terms of data allowed or not allowed. Some of the requirements under COPPA that apply to children under the age of 13 might be extended to students until the age of 17.

As an educator in the digital age of cloud-based educational services, I am often frustrated that I am unable to embrace the free and easy to use tools that Google Apps for Education offers, or other cool educational software services because of fear of student privacy violations or non-compliance with district policies and procedures. However, as a leader in educational technology, I am interested in developing solutions that meet everyone’s needs—the solution includes awareness, responsible use, and adherence to laws such as SOPIPA.

Given the complexity of the above issues, steps that will need to be put in place in my school district require communication and transparency to all stakeholders. First, notification of recent SOPIPA requirements and FERPA guidelines for schools and districts for how to interpret and apply the law in this new digital age; second, district school-wide trainings for teachers, students, non-certificated school employees, and other stakeholders; third, revision of parent notification and consent forms to include children over the age of 13 to reduce potential SOPIPA violations, as COPPA is better defined. Finally, if a district does decide to embrace Google Apps for Education, Microsoft Office products, or other cloud-based educational services, a careful agreement needs to be worked out in advance to limit or eliminate SOPIPA, FERPA, COPPA, or CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act) violations. For example, Google’s alleged practices of intercepting and data mining of student emails.

Until such time that amendments are made to FERPA or additional bills are enacted that reduce the ambiguity in student educational data privacy laws and likelihood of accidental violations of student-data privacy, schools sites and districts need to focus on awareness and be proactive in terms of potential student-data privacy and security violations.

References:

Benjamin Herold (September 30, 2014). “‘Landmark’ Student-Data-Privacy Law Enacted in California” and “Google Under Fire for Data-Mining Student Email Messages”. (March 14, 2014). Education Week (Digital Education Week’s Blogs). March 8, 2015. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2014/09/_landmark_student-data-privacy.html and http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html#

Ujifusa, Andrew (April 15, 2014). “State Lawmakers Ramp Up Attention to Data Privacy.” Education Week (Digital Education Week’s Blogs). March 8, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/04/16/28data.h33.html?qs=ujifusa+data+privacy#

Reflecting on the role of data in decision-making and why understanding data and sources of data are important—Module 6

2/28/2015

Given the growing trend and emphasis on “big data,” and the potential impact that data can have on informing teaching and learning, data’s role in decision-making is becoming even more important than in past years. Currently, school districts, state departments of education, and the US department of education use data such as student course grades, tests, demographics, teacher information, program attendance, interventions for struggling students, an in observations. However, the rapid pace of change in data architecture and movement toward the use of big data in education, makes it more important to understand who uses the data, the types of data being used, access to data, and how the data will be used. This is especially the case with recent funding changes such as LCFF and use of the LCAP to hold districts and schools accountable.

According to Kenneth Cukier, The Economist’s data editor in an interview on data in education, this technology really makes stakeholders more accountable in terms of outcomes. This has the benefit of tailoring instruction to better personalize student needs and perhaps meeting future LCAP requirements. The downside as pointed out is privacy. For example, a student’s transcript following them for longer periods of time and having potential negative effects from this. Rules may need to be put into place restricting the number of years students are accountable. This is only one area where it is important to understand data and data sources.

Decision-makers will need to examine a variety of data with their stakeholders in order to make decisions about personalizing learning. An example of this mentioned in the Education Enterprise Architecture Guidebook is the use of assessment items (data), p.24. This might come from textbook end of chapter tests, teacher designed unit assessments, end of course exams, etc. It is important to understand data, data standards, and the movement of data, in order to make informed decisions and implement the needed policies and procedures.

References:

Education Enterprise Architecture Guidebook. (2014) (1st ed., pp. 24, 25 and Appendix C). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/education-architecture-guidebook.pdf

Economist interview on Data in Education. The Economist (April 23, 2014). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4RUgenV3U

Who Uses Student Data? Data Quality Campaign (June 9, 2014). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uj0JkCpgM and http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/find-resources/who-uses-student-data/