Michael D Sessa President CEO UNLOCKING THE POWER

Michael D. Sessa President & CEO UNLOCKING THE POWER OF DATA EDUCAUSE Live! 29, All rights Copyright. October © 2010. PESC. reserved. 2010

THE BASICS: How standards are set: 2 Ü Government mandate (i. e. legislation and/or regulation) Ü Informally or defacto when a single product/service gains wide market use Ü Formally through cooperation, collaboration, study, and approval by a designated group

National Technology Transfer & Advancement Act “. . . all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments. ” “. . . Federal agencies and departments shall consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies and shall. . . participate with such bodies in the development of technical standards. ” Section 12 (d) (1 -2) 3

Office of Management & Budget Circular No. A-119 What are the goals of the government in using voluntary consensus standards? Eliminate the cost to the Government of developing its own standards and decrease the costs of goods procured and the burden of complying with agency regulation. Ü Provide incentives and opportunities to establish standards that serve national needs. Ü Encourage long-term growth for U. S. enterprises and promote efficiency and economic competition through harmonization of standards. Ü Further the policy of reliance upon the private sector to supply Government needs for goods and services. Ü 4

Section 143 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 “In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the student aid delivery system, the Secretary and the COO shall encourage and participate in the establishment of voluntary consensus standards and requirements for the electronic transmission of information necessary for the administration of programs under title IV. ” The COO shall participate in the activities of standards setting organizations. . . Ü The COO shall encourage higher education groups seeking to develop common forms, standards, and procedures. . . to conduct these activities within a standard setting organization. Ü The COO may pay necessary dues and fees associated with participation. . . Ü 5

Factors Impacting Standards in Higher Education 6 Ü US Department of Education § Federal Student Aid (FSA) - Direct Loans, FAFSA, NSLDS, etc. § National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) - IPEDS Data Collection § Planning, Evaluation & Policy Development (OPEPD) - Pending Ü Other Federal Agencies § NSF, NIH, DHS, HHS, DOD, etc. Ü Coordination: System to System, Public to Private, PK 12, International, etc. Ü Shift to State-Based Grants: Federal and Foundation Ü Market Factors: Cost, Efficiency, Data Quality, Blended Paper/Electronic Services, Infrastructure, Competition, Transfer

CASE STUDIES 7

GOAL: Use identical XML Architecture & Data Modeling Guidelines 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Financial Aid Common. Line 4 Common. Line 5 ? Phases out pre CL 4 ? Campus-Based FAFSA/ISIR Servicing IPEDS 8 Phased out Required COD - Direct Lending Optional PELL Early Adopters Common Record

GOAL: Use identical XML Architecture & Data Modeling Guidelines Registrar/ Admissions Transcripts EDI College – XML High School – XML Admission Application EDI XML Test Score EDI XML Course Inventory EDI XML 9 1990 - 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Many states are setting up their own centralized hubs to manage data exchange within their own respective states. Many too are including high schools and private, independent colleges and universities as spokes in the network – a truly robust and complete state-based solution. This scenario applies to college or university systems as well. Hub 10 Spokes – One state college or university that needs to send data to another sends it through the central state hub.

How is data communicated when a student transfers out of one state and into another? What about from college to college, or college to university? What about international students? ? 11

WE KNOW THIS! Without data standardization, expect: 12 Ü increased cost of systems, IT, integration Ü increased cost in resources due to serial, redundant and customized programming for the same data elements Ü slower response to customer needs Ü increased data mapping which jeopardizes data quality and integrity Ü more difficult access to data Ü repetitive programming if rules, regulations, or business needs change

Whiles states can set up their own hubs to manage data exchange within their own respective states, national standards facilitate data exchange across state lines – state to state or hub to hub. Peer to peer exchange is possible with national standards, but a centralized method for exchanging data is needed as well for states, regions, colleges, and universities that don’t have or want their own hubs or don’t want a peer to peer model. Technic al Data Standar ds 13

WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT? Ü Ü 14 Broad exchange and transportation of data from one point to another remains largely unaddressed in higher education There is a significant need for a centralized hub or network that can exchange data standards for states, colleges and universities in need Without a service, states, colleges, and universities have to search for a mechanism on their own or build it themselves Leaving each entity to build mechanisms on its own is extremely expensive, will take years, and as a result may never actually happen

PESC MISSION & VISION Through open and transparent community participation, PESC enables cost-effective connectivity between data systems to accelerate performance and service, to simplify data access and research, and to improve data quality along the higher education lifecycle. PESC envisions national and international interoperability, that is a trustworthy, inter-connected environment built by and between communities of interest in which data flows seamlessly from one system to another and throughout the entire eco-system when and where needed without compatibility barriers but in a safe, secure, reliable, and efficient manner. While PESC promotes the implementation and usage of data exchange standards, PESC does not set (create or establish) policies related to privacy and security. Organizations and entities using PESC standards and services should ensure they comply with FERPA and all local, state, federal and international rules on privacy and security as applicable. 15

OUR FOUNDING Established in 1997 at the National Center for Higher Education and located in Washington, D. C. , the Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council (PESC) is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) community-based, umbrella association of colleges and universities; college and university systems; professional and commercial organizations; data, software and service providers; non-profit organizations and associations; and state and federal government agencies. • • • 16 AACRAO AASCU ACT, Inc. CAUSE (now Educause) Citibank COHEAO College Board Education Finance Council Educational Testing Service Harbinger Corporation KPMG Peat Marwick LLP Law School Admission Council • • NACAC NACUBO NASFAA National Computer Systems NCHELP Salie Mae Servicing Corporation Student Loan Servicing Alliance Systems and Computer Technology (SCT) Corporation (now Sun. Gard Higher Education) • USA Group (now USA Funds) • U. S. Department of Education

DELPHI STUDY Benefits of approved standards for developers & consumers: Ü Ü 17 increases the value of existing and future investments in IT allows the portability of data decreases the long-term cost of ownership for applicable software vendor alternatives expands choices for software vendor alternatives

Factors driving participation in a standards body: Ü vendor neutrality access to a developer community and best practices Ü membership comprised of both end users and commercial software vendors Ü international presence and focus Ü industry-wide or horizontal orientation Ü open or “democratic” committee process Ü opportunity to direct standard specification from moment of conception Ü 18

PESC GOALS 1. Accelerate Performance & Service 2. Reduce Cost 3. Lead Collaborative Development 4. Set /Maintain Data Standards 5. Promote Best Practices 6. Link Public & Private Sectors 7. Serve as Data Experts 19

PESC BOARD OF DIRECTORS Bill Hollowsky, General Manager, Sun. Gard Higher Education Vice Chair Francisco Valines, Director of Financial Aid, Florida International University Treasurer David Moldoff, CEO & Founder, Academy. One, Inc. Secretary Rick Skeel, Director of Academic Records, University of Oklahoma, Represents AACRAO Jeffrey Alderson, Director of Development, Connect. Edu Brian Allison, Vice President for Technology & Industry Initiatives, USA Funds, Chair Represents NCHELP Russ Buyse, Vice President R & D, Transcript Solutions, Edustructures/Pearson Judy Chappelear, Vice President of Solutions, Xap Corporation Matthew Coombs, Senior Director of Systems Development, San Joaquin Delta College District, Represents Kuali Foundation Doug Falk, Chief Technology Officer, National Student Clearinghouse Russ Judd, Vice President of Industry Relations, Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Represents NASLA Michael Sessa, President & CEO, PESC Andy Wood, Senior Director of Higher Education Product Development, Oracle Corporation 20

HIERARCHY Board of Directors Executive Advisory Committee Steering Committee President & CEO Seal of Approval Membership Services Change Control Board Social Media & Networking Task Force Support Resources Technical Advisory Board EA 2 Task Force Support Resources Workgroups 21 Ed. Unify Task Force Attribute Workgroup Student Aid Workgroup

PESC Membership AACRAO* AAMC Academy. One, Inc. Accenture ACE ACT* Avow Systems, Inc. Board of Regents, Georgia University System California Community Colleges California School Information Services Central Connecticut State University Clayton State University College Board* College Source, Inc. Common Application Community College of the Air Force Connect. Edu, Inc. Datatel Decision Academic Docufide Educause* Edustructures/Pearson ELM Resources Emory University e. Scholar Florida International University Florida State University George Washington University Georgetown University IMS Global Learning Consortium 22 Indiana State University Iowa State University Jenzabar Kaplan University Key Bank Kuali Foundation Leepfrog LSAC* NASLA National Student Clearinghouse NCHELP* NELA Nelnet Ohio Board of Regents Ontario College Application Services Oregon State University, Corvallis Oracle PA College of Technology Purdue University red. Lantern SCRIP-SAFE International San Francisco State University SIF Association Simon Fraser University Smart. Catalog Southern Connecticut State University Stanford University Sun. Gard Higher Education* Texas A&M University TG University of California, Berkeley University of Denver University of Idaho University of Illinois at Chicago University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign University of Illinois, Student Financial Services and Cashier Operations University of Lethbridge University of Louisiana at Lafayette University of Minnesota University of Mississippi University of North Carolina, Greensboro University of Northern Iowa University of Oklahoma University of Oregon University of Phoenix University of South Florida University of Texas at Austin University of Virginia US Department of Education* US General Services Administration USA Funds* Washington State University XAP Corporation

Annual Membership Dues Non-Profit College Or University – 1 campus $150 –< $10 million $5, 000 – 2 – 10 campuses $500 –$10 million < $100 million $7, 500 –$100 million + $10, 000 – 11+ campuses $1, 000 For-Profit College Or University Commercial Organization with Revenues –< 1, 000 students $150 –< $1 million $5, 000 – 1, 000 < 10, 000 students $500 –$1 million < $10 million $6, 500 – 10, 000 -< 50, 000 students $1, 000 –$10 million < $100 million $13, 000 – 50, 000+ students $2, 500 –$100 million + $16, 000 Non-Profit Association* 23 Non-Profit Organization with Revenues $5, 000 State Agency $6, 000 Bank, Lender, Or Servicer $11, 000

STANDARDS FORUM FOR EDUCATION Ü Ü Ü 24 Founded August 4, 2000 by the PESC Board in response to a white paper produced by a PESC workgroup that analyzed the emergence of XML and recommended PESC involvement Serves as the standards development body of PESC “Candidates” for standards are proposed, developed, and processed by the Standards Forum Governed by a Steering Committee Follows established policies and procedures for development and approval Includes multiple Boards and Workgroups

e. X tensible Markup Language Ü Ü Ü 25 Designed to improve the functionality of the web by providing flexibility and adaptability: – customized and dynamic – ideal for real-time transactions and messaging – <title>Electronic Initiatives</title> Flat files: – fixed lengths, always with extra or redundant data – mostly used for batch processing – 02072003 SESSAMICHAEL 090120020501200300212805302003 Identifying, defining, formatting, and transmitting data from point A to point B XML 1. 0 approved by W 3 C 2/98 Emerged as the technology for real-time, web-based transactions Lacked “common” or industry standards

STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT Ü Ü Ü 26 Define and standardize “simple” data elements (also called “core components”) and “complex” core components (several simple core components grouped together) Group core components together into business transactions Develop implementation guides for reference and support Issue candidates for public comment and approval/voting process Populate “Core Main” data dictionary with all simple and complex core components Store all core components in the XML Registry & Repository for the Education Community

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Ü Ü 27 Released March 2005 Focus is on collaboration, submission, approval, & maintenance Includes: § Process § PESC Guidelines for XML Architecture and Data Modeling § Users Guide for XML Registry and Repository for the Education Community Adopted by FSA

XML REGISTRY & REPOSITORY FOR THE EDUCATION COMMUNITY Ü Ü Ü 28 Developed, owned, and administered by FSA Governed by PESC Stores PESC approved standards Sorted alphabetically by core component, by classification/taxonomy, by sector and by message specification Free and open to the public w/o barriers or user name and password

ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW Ü 80 Members and Affiliates and 7 major partners Ü Seal of Approval Program – Optional service to ensure uniformity of implementation Ü Formal policies/procedures for development/architecture – Guides development Ü XML Registry & Repository for the Education Community – Administered by the US Department of Education & governed by PESC – accessibility of standards is open & free Ü 9 Standards Approved – High School Transcript, College Transcript, Common Origination & Disbursement (COD), Common Record: Common. Line (CRC), Data Transport Standard (DTS), Online Loan Counseling, Admission Application, IPEDS, Education Test Score Reporting Ü 5 Standards in Development – Academic e-Portfolio, Academic Progress, Course Inventory, PDF Transcript, Recruitment & Enrollment Ü Ü 29 1 User Group – Education Record User Group for all transcript processing 2 Task Forces – E-Authentication/E-Authorization Task Force – EA 2 Ed. Unify Task Force

WHERE ARE WE? Ü Ü Ü 30 PESC approved financial aid XML standards implemented in every* U. S. college and university High School and/or College Transcripts used/implemented in 6 states (CA, GA, IN, NC, OH, VA) and throughout Alberta and Ontario 18 states plan on implementation within 18 -24 months Data Transport Standard implemented in Alberta, a handful of colleges, and with National Student Clearinghouse XML College Transcript implemented by Sun. Gard Higher Education

PESC SUPPORTS Key policy factors in higher education: Ü Access of student and adult learner data into the postsecondary environment Ü Affordability as institutional performance is improved and made efficient Ü Student Achievement as administrative barriers are eliminated allowing students to focus on learning Lifecycle of a student Ü Secondary to postsecondary Ü Postsecondary to postsecondary Operational Efficiencies Ü Reusability of development work Ü Recycling of data elements 31

PESC Creates New Paradigms: Ü Ü Ü 32 No single law, model, or mandate can standardize higher education in its entirety PESC community agrees to not compete on data exchange. . . that the education network/super highway is a necessary commodity “Coopetition” – Creation of an environment of “cooperation among competitors” for the greater common good Standards development is consensus-based and implementation is voluntary Lessons learned from how the ATM network and SEVIS were launched

PESC Creates New Paradigms: Ü Ü 33 PESC community agrees to compete on price and service Transparent collaboration through PESC – our cornerstone principle – a neutral objective third party, levels the playing field and allows a trusting environment PESC does not benefit from the national standards agreed upon by the education community Ability to rely on consistent, accurate data exchange frees administrators up to focus on the needs of students

CHALLENGES Ü Ü Ü 34 Awareness of longitudinal data needs and data systems alignment along the entire lifecycle of a student bridging PK 12 and higher education (PK– 20) and into Labor/Workforce Concentration on student achievement Incentives to address specific employment fields with shortages (e. g. STEM – science, technology, and math) Real-time data exchange and inquiry Participation in standards development process vs. indifference in process and need for off-the-shelf standards Mobility, changing learning patterns and transfers

INDUSTRY PARTNERS Ü AACRAO’s SPEEDE Committee – American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Standardization of Postsecondary Education Electronic Data Exchange Ü Ü Ü DQC – Data Quality Campaign In. Common Federation SHEEO – State Higher Education Executive Officers SIF Association Sun. Gard Higher Education US Department of Education § § § 35 NCES – National Center for Education Statistics FSA – Office of Federal Student Aid Office of the Under Secretary

Outreach, Education, & Awareness Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü ADL – Advanced Distributed Learning CCSSO – Council of Chief State School Officers Educause HR-XML IMS Global Learning Consortium Internet 2 JISC – Joint Information Systems Committee (UK) Kuali Foundation LETSI – International Federation for Learning, Education, and Training Systems Interoperability Ü Ü Ü 36 OASIS – Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development RS 3 G – Rome Student Systems and Standards Group

PESC 2. 0 Ü Ü Ü Ü 37 Launch of Ed. Unify Continued development of common data standards Increased education and awareness of EA 2 Publications and Communications Services & Training Launch of Social Media & Networking Task Force Establishment of PESC Executive Advisory Committee

COMMON DATA STANDARDS Ü Ü 38 New Consortium for Common Data Standards: SHEEO, PESC, CCSSO, SIF Association, DQC, and US Department of Education Longitudinal Data from early childhood, through elementary and secondary, to postsecondary and labor and workforce Technical work supported and funded by NCES Adoption and Implementation funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Michael and Susan Dell Foundation

Align PK – 20 Data Systems PK - 12 SIFA – SIF Specification Higher Education PESC - Standards SIFA Developed Jointly Developed PESC Developed 39

Higher Education Data Model PESC has begun development work in green shaded areas. Model displays disparate college/university systems of which most interface with each other through proprietary formats. 40 Systems in blue and yellow shaded areas have little, if any, standards.

41

42

BENEFITS 1) Simplifies integration 2) Stabilizes demands on resources 3) Provides significant return on investment 4) Accelerates application development time 5) Shortens response time to emerging customer needs 6) Improves data quality, service and overall performance 7) Bolsters systems connectivity and interoperability 8) Enables software-as-a-service and fee-forservice business models 43 9) Serves as a governance framework for service- oriented architecture 10) Bridges service gaps and limited systems capacity 11) Supplies ready-to-use, off-the-shelf public/private services 12) Fosters community-based collaboration as services become commoditized, shared and re-used 13) Facilitates more efficient access to data without compromising privacy protections and security safeguards 14) Lowers the cost of systems development and management 15) Eases the burden of overwhelmed product development cycles

Ed. Unify can facilitate use of the following killer applications: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Faculty Search for Expertise, Schedule, etc. Student Search for Enrollment Status Student Progress, Traceback Search Teacher Traceback Search Lookup Program and Course Learning Outcomes and Comparability 6) Government Agency Data and Information Collection 7) Student Guidance and Advising Services 8) Applications to Accelerate Learning, Research & Knowledge Gathering 9) Applications for Mobile, Portable or Wearable Computer Devices 10) New Media Applications SIGN UP FOR AN ACCOUNT at https: //www. Ed. Unify. PESC. org 44

45

46

47

CONTACT INFORMATION Ü Michael Sessa, President & CEO Michael. Sessa@PESC. org 202 -261 -6516 Ü Jennifer Kim, Membership Services Director Jennifer. Kim@PESC. org Ü 202 -261 -6514 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D. C. 20036 www. pesc. org 48