1. A4L – Australia Success Stories
Scotts Valley, California
February 2017

2. Standards – Success with Agile Tools
NAPLAN – National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy
All States & Territories, multiple year levels, lots of kids
Moving from paper to online
Multiple legacy systems – multiple integration points, large number of stakeholders internally and externally
Thankfully… All stakeholders agreed to exchange data based on the SIF AU data model

3. NAPLAN – How is it meant to work?
NSW
Victoria
Assessment
Platform
Student registration data
QLD SA WA
Student results data
TAS
So, simply, this is how NAPLAN Online is meant to work.
Looks straight forward, simple even. But we all know how complex integration can be…
And how easily projects can become derailed when people are focussed on their patch and not on the edges….
ACT NT

4. What is it like? Image 1 – So can anyone tell me what this is?
Commonly found on Australian beaches. Man-of-war, blue bottle, or floating terror, is a marine hydrozoan
Siphonophore, which, unlike jellyfish, is not actually a single multicellular organism, but a colonial organism made up of specialized individual animals called zooids.
Now I bring this up because our NAPALN program, needs to operate like a co-ordinated group of blue bottles, and not end up like a tangled mess on the beach.
Our greatest challenge has been in getting co-ordination between systems and stakeholders. Getting agreement on the data model was great but because of the roll-out model and transition across 3 years, systems will be at different stages of their evolution, and while everyone was focussed on the core assessment aspects of the system, the little part about data needing to change hands was pushed further and further back in people’s minds.

5. The Challenge
Stakeholders want to focus on their core business. They want tools that are:
Easy
Flexible
Forgiving
Integration is hard

6. NIAS Not a service :) A set of tools that create useful services
That help the work of integration
Which have SIF as a foundation, but recognise that integration may have to manage multiple models and formats
Simple, robust, scalable services
Written in GoLANG, uses LEDIS/REDIS, NATS for the messaging bus
All open, all available

7. We released NIAS and then we waited…
Who knows what this is?
Funnel web / Trapdoor spiders are named for their unique nest building and hunting strategies. The spiders wait and watch for prey behind a false door at the entrance to their burrow. When an unsuspecting victim wanders too close, they appear in a flash, grab their meal and pull it into their den.
Most dangerous spider in the world (alongside redbacks). Have killed 13 people, but no one since the ‘80s.

8. NIAS for NAPLAN
Used by multiple states to validate NAPLAN registration data against the SIF AU data model
Supports legacy systems and formats during transition
A start for the community
Only the community can make it work
Integration needs to be easier
We should still use the best models possible

9. Resources
Check out NIAS tool for NAPLAN registration here:
NIAS queries:

10. Vendor Led Adoption of SIF3
Solving business problems with managed services
Aziz Elia, CPSI Ltd. in partnership with ZiNET Data Solutions Limited Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community 2017 Annual Meeting, Santa Cruz, CA

11. Session Overview Engaging with vendors
Benefits of vendor led SIF adoption
Use Case: Privacy by Design
How DataExchange delivers privacy control and SIF as a business solution

12. Engaging with Vendors
The best way to engage with vendors is by delivering a solution to their business problem, for new entrants its delivering a cross sis support. New entrants will be heavily focused on sales and will need to integrate with what their customs have. For existing entrants they will be looking for a solution that offers a better return on investment.

13. Developer Choice
SIF data models can be accessed in XML and JSON format, but the SIF3 infrastructure is data model agnostic can support other standards such as ISB too.
Developers want to engage with tools and standard that support their current way of working so support XML and JSON gives this flexibility.

14. Delivering the SIF specification as a documented API reduces the barrier to entry for developers, this style of documentation is familiar to them and doubles as a test hardness.

15. Enterprise Grade
Vendors want an on demand enterprise grade solution that they can deployment when and where they need it and for as long as they need it.
This flexibility will support their business growth plans.

16. Benefits of Vendor Led Adoption of SIF
Lowers barrier to entry
Vendor supplies the infrastructure
Moves sector toward ubiquitous infrastructure
Lowers costs to vendors
Reduction of complexity and development time
Develop once. Deploy anywhere.
Lowers cost to institutions
No pre-requisite of existing infrastructure
Increased interoperability
Connect once. Collaborate together.
Institutions don’t need to know/understand SIF – in fact it should be invisible to them.

17. Use Case: Privacy by Design
The strict data privacy laws in the UK require that only data that is required to be shared should be shared and no additional data should be included.
These principles are transferrable to other countries as they provide numerous business opportunities.
Vendor applications have a mandatory set of data which their application needs to function and they have an optional set which adds value. By allowing institutions to configure what optional data is shared they are total control.

18. Business Focused Data Flow
One of the benefits to vendors of managed services is they are able to move away from an technical approach to integration and move to a data focus approach.
Having a data focused approach allows them to be innovative with there product, when new data object are required they are ready and willing to engage to support the adoption of more data objects as they already see the business benefits.

19. Location-Based Data Concerns
DataExchange can be deployed on-site, deployed into the cloud, or a hybrid of the two.
This allows for sensitive data to remain located wherever is necessary. For example, due to legal requirements, such as the UK’s Data Protection Act, or other privacy/security concerns.
DataExchange is currently targeting the UK market, but with plans to move into other territories.

20. Managed Services

21. One of the key aspects of DataExchange is that it removed the need for SIS/MIS providers to already support SIF, as part of the service a connector will be built against an existing method integration method (API DB access etc). The removes a massive barrier to having a universal service.

22. To reduce the technical burden on institutions, DataExchange presents vendor applications in one or more market places, (country, region or institutions (district or MAT) wide.
This means integration can setup/authorised by non technical users. Each deployment is governed by a digitally signed data sharing agreement.

23. Institutions are able to compare the data requirements of an application against what their SIS/MIS is able to support. The application vendor define their data requirements once.

24. Institutions are able to tailor the data they release on a per application basis and confirmed with a digitally signed data sharing agreement.

25. Extended elements are supported and elements can also be marked as sensitive which highlights the row orange, if the filed has additional encryption it will be marked with a padlock.
All the information is used to create the XSLT filtering for each vendor zone.

26. Technical Overview

27. Technical Overview

28. New York regional information centers
Jump Start!
xPress roster via sif 2
New York regional information centers
RIC One project
Jason Wrage
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

29. Standard
Utilization
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

30. © Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

31. Concerns over privacy and security lead to the demise of inBloom
The Challenge
“Every new beginning comes from some other beginning’s end.” Seneca (or Semisonic?)
Concerns over privacy and security lead to the demise of inBloom
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

32. The 700+ districts in New York state still needed solutions for data interoperability & SSO…
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

33. Reliably and consistently obtaining data from (6) different student systems
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

34. Maximizing adoption potential to provide students and teachers with lots of choices
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

35. The Solution Enter: API and LOGIN
Entrust the regional service centers already providing data and networking services to districts with building a better mousetrap
Business requirements related to privacy and security largely drove the defining architectural characteristics
Emphasis is on local & regional control
Regional data hubs
Federated single sign on
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

36. The Solution
What’s the best way to securely provide rostering data to educational apps?
A modern, open, RESTful web service API
Building on SIF 3, we developed xPress Roster
Our implementation is known as RIC One API
What’s the best way to provide Single Sign On, while maintaining local control and security best practices?
Federated identity
Our implementation is known as RIC One LOGIN
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

37. “Better together” but “independently adoptable”
The Solution
RIC One API
ingests data from SISs using SIF2
offers roster data to client apps via the xPress Roster API
RIC One LOGIN
connects to district, regional or cloud directories (IdPs) via LDAPS
Offers SSO services to service providers using SAML 2, WS-Federation and OpenID Connect (future)
“Better together” but “independently adoptable”
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

38. The Standards RIC One API Function Standard Description Data ingestion
SIF 2
Near-universal support by source systems (SISs), reliability and real time were the main benefits to using SIF2 to get data.
Data storage
CEDS
We created a “light” schema to support rostering based on CEDS DES. This enables us to be agnostic for ingestion and API output.
API
xPress Roster /SIF 3
We based xPress roster on both CEDS and SIF3. It is designed for simplicity and ease of use by developers of client apps.
Code sets
Since SIF 3 does not provide a standard set of codes, we decided that the option sets in CEDS were the best way to go.
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

39. The Standards RIC One LOGIN Function Standard Description
Directory access
LDAPS
Near-universal support by source systems (SISs), reliability and real time were the main benefits to using SIF2 to get data.
SSO
SAML 2
The current de facto standard for enterprise, web-enabled SSO.
WS-Federation
An older standard required for Office 365 support.
OpenID Connect
Positioned to become the new standard of choice for SSO. Better support for mobile.
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

40. RIC One Integrated System Architecture
Nuts & Bolts
DPA (x12)
Config Service
Auth Service
District SISs
Other Data Sources
District Directories
Identity Federation
Provisioning
Auth-Time Client
Client App/SP
SAML Client
API Client
LOGIN Components
API Components
Central Services
RIC One Integrated System Architecture
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

41. Nuts & Bolts These solutions are based almost exclusively on
Open standards:
xPress Roster
SIF 3
SIF NA 2.x
CEDS
Open source:
NSIP’s SIF 2 and SIF 3 frameworks
ForgeRock’s identity platform
Linux, Docker, MySQL/MariaDB, Node.JS, Loopback
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

42. Meeting Stakeholder Needs
Districts
Enabling streamlined, equitable access to apps
Heightened awareness of privacy and security
Eliminates the burden of manual processes
RICs
Collaboration across regions
Reduction in labor required to build and maintain traditional extract methods across multiple SISs
Vendors
A single API for roster data
Easy to implement (we even provide client libraries)
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

43. Related Sessions Open Source, later today xPress Next, Wednesday
xPress Attendance, Thursday
Thank you!
For more information
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

44. SIF2/SIF3 Mix-And-Match
Extending the life and value of a SIF2 implementation using SIF3 infrastructure
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

45. In the beginning...
Starting in 2014, a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) was rolled out across over 300 districts in Iowa
Over 40 non-public schools were also granted access
Initially only roster data was requested (this grew over time)
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

46. Lay of the land
SIF 2 had been in place for some time for state reporting, state ID system, and transcript data
3 Different Student Information Systems
Diverse/Distributed Hosting Model (district, SIS, AEA)
Rollout on a compressed timeframe (months, not years)
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

47. Requirements Real-time (event driven) data collections
Use “untouched” SIF2 Agents from SIS’s
Interface with new application(s) over REST (SIF3)
Scale (both administration and throughput)
Could not jeopardize stability of existing deployment
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

48. Section 3.3.1: ...an agent communicating in two zones...
REST Client (SIF 3.x)
v2.X Agent (untouched)
CedarLabs Broker
(SIF 2+3 Bridge)
REST Client (SIF 3.x)
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

49. Successes Over 400 Zones currently administered
Over 15 K educators on-boarded
Data breadth has been extended beyond roster
3 apps have plugged in to new infrastructure so far
>6 million records processed in 24 hour window
Data quality gets better every year
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community

50. Take Away Start small Mitigate risks Recognize short-term benefits
Work towards long-term strategy
© Access 4 Learning (A4L) Community