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/

This week I was asked to reflect on the systems and processes my school district, San Diego Unified and my site, SCPA use to better define a business architecture and how some of these systems might be better aligned.

To understand the current state of Business Architecture within my school district and at my school site involved reviewing and analyzing several resources such as organizational charts, performance measures, budgets, the types of services provided, and especially the overall vision and strategic plan in terms of how each of these services aligns with the plan. It did seem that the district vision drove most, if not all of the strategies. The business services and capabilities of the San Diego Unified School District and my school site, SCPA that I reviewed included: transportation services, teacher preparation and support services, human resources, finance and business, technology, real estate, and custodial services. What I learned after reviewing and analyzing these systems is that there is not always a clear process owner for each business process and that not all of the processes are clearly defined and documented. For example, types of transportation services do not appear to be aligned. The iCommute Carpool service is relatively new and developed because of transportations cuts. However, it is not aligned with current transportation (busing) services. Also, many human resource services require active participation from district and school employees. For example, functions that used to be completed by administrative assistants at school sites now are required to be completed by school employees. More training in these areas would help with staff buy-in and capability in terms of automating this process and to reduce staffing in other areas. To my surprise, there were not as many gaps as I anticipated.

An area that perhaps needs to be better defined is the articulation process. Our site recently went to an automated system, Naviance for student articulation to replace the hand completed articulation forms. Students are able to login and select courses. Parents are to login to view student selections and assist with career or college planning. Documents can be shared with colleges and other career partners. Effectively articulation has been outsourced.

References:
A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge™ (BIZBOK™ Guide). (2013) (3rd ed., p. (All Pages). Retrieved from http://www2.mitre.org/public/eabok/pdf/BIZBOK-V3.5-Part1-Introduction.pdf

Education Enterprise Architecture Guidebook. (2014) (1st ed., pp. pages 11-14 and 23-24, 29). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/education-architecture-guidebook.pdf

California Enterprise Architecture Framework. (2013) (2nd ed., pp. pages 13-19). Retrieved from http://www.cio.ca.gov/Publications/pubs/Appendix_A.pdf

This week I was asked to focus on Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAFs). Enterprise Architecture and its frameworks are still relatively new for me. What follows is a chart that represents what I know about Enterprise Architecture Frameworks, what I would like to know, and what I have learned since beginning of my exploration. 

Summary

In the past ten years, Enterprise Architecture (EA) has gained wide used within many businesses and in government organizations. Given the growing demands in today’s globalized work environment, Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAFs) are continuing to grow in popularity. Many businesses and organizations are using “hybrids” of these models or are customizing them to meet and adapt to the needs of their stakeholders. Educational institutions are also starting to implement EA frameworks as well.

Cameron and McMillan’s (2013) work is a good starting point for understanding the history of EA frameworks. Their review of the literature provides an overview of the five major EAFs. These include the Zachman Framework, which is considered to be one of the first frameworks for EA, The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF), which is based on the Department of Defense’s Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management, the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (Do DAF), which focuses on operations, systems, and technical standards, the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), which places the organization and sharing of federal information as a priority function, and the Gartner Framework, which involves a continuous, on-going process.

Urbaczewski and Mrdalj’s (2006) add to the work of Cameron and McMillian by drawing comparisons between the EA frameworks developed and also include attention to the Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF), which is designed to address the interrelationships among all of its organizations to manage all of its IT resources. Their comparison of the EA frameworks suggests that each of the frameworks differs by the stakeholders needs addressed and also offers guidance for determining the best EAF to meet the criteria for each organization.

Since the current EA frameworks were developed with either specific needs in mind or might not meet the growing needs of organizations, a “hybrid” or customized version of an existing EA framework might be needed for educational institutions, as it might afford greater flexibility. Although further research is needed, the TOGAF and Zachman EA frameworks appear to be the frameworks to build upon. Finally, according to the literature so far, all of the existing frameworks are weak in addressing the maintenance of an information system. This seems to be an area where more work is needed. In terms of adoption of EA frameworks by educational institutions, the present challenge rests with the sequence, process, and transition from individual systems to full implementation of EA.


References:

Bernard, Scott A. (2012-08-13). An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture: Third Edition (Kindle Locations 487-488). AuthorHouse. Kindle Edition.

Cameron & McMillan, 2013.  Analyzing the Current Trends in Enterprise Architecture Frameworks.  Journal of Enterprise Architecture.  http://ea.ist.psu.edu/documents/journal_feb2013_cameron_2.pdf

Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006. A comparison of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks.  Eastern Michigan University.  http://iacis.org/iis/2006/Urbaczewki_Mrdalj.pdf

Enterprise Architecture (EA) is a new concept for me, but draws upon models I am familiar with. Prior to this course, I’d heard of Enterprise Architecture, but thought of it more as a framework for businesses, marketing, or engineering. Colleagues of mine outside of education often referenced it. John Zachman (2012) emphasizes the importance of infusing some of the components of EA into the web generation through education.[1] Given the growing needs in K-12 education and implementation of technology initiatives in schools, management planning, use of resources, and technology practices that improve performance makes a lot sense. From what I’m learning in Scott Bernard’s introduction to EA, the transition from use of individual systems and programs to enterprise-wide solutions has the potential to maximize school operations and functions. Although it still has pitfalls during the transitional phase, it appears to be a step in the right direction.

As a classroom teacher I was mostly concerned with individual systems functioning so that I could effectively do my job. However, my role over the past two years as the Digital Teacher Leader (DTL) and Lead PowerSchool teacher has made me think much differently about strategies and the importance of decision-making, management and planning. My district is using EA to rollout the i21 Initiative. Although certain technological components were easily deployed, such as software, email, databases and PowerSchool, full implementation has not been without pitfalls, and we still have services that are not depended on central technology (non-enterprise services). These include our school cafeteria, library resources and checkout system, and our phone communication system. Overall, I see Enterprise Architecture being beneficial for our school site. However, there are still several areas in need of improvement. Probably the greatest challenges are improving communication between all stakeholders and the integration of an EA Management Plan at the site level. Currently, not all EA policies are integrated with other site policies, and more autonomy at the site level is needed where some of the EA services are being deployed. For example, the deployment and integration of PowerSchool to replace Zangle last year made my role as Lead PowerSchool teacher extremely demanding and frustrating, as I found myself having to train most of the staff to use the grade components of the system and if serious problems arose with PowerSchool, the network technician, site technician, and myself did not have the autonomy to resolve the issue. Even our admin team felt powerless. Instead, we had to wait for someone at the district to fix the problems. Also, in terms of getting our staff up and running on PowerSchool, district trainings were sufficient in terms of teachers being able to use the system for attendance, but not beyond that. Having a new unskilled site tech every month didn’t help the situation.

To be more optimistic, four areas where our school has benefited from EA include: being able to quickly identify and monitor at risk students, identifying areas for program improvement, improved access to technology in the classroom, and EA has helped prioritize funding of programs and projects.

[1] Zachman, John’s Foreward in Bernard, Scott (2012). An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture (Third edition). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

References:

Bernard, Scott. (2012). An introduction to enterprise architecture (Third edition). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Ross, Jeanne W., and Peter Weill. "Six IT Decisions Your IT People Shouldn't Make." Harvard Business Review, November 2002.