Learning Services Architecture

an architecture of agreement

for national education services in Australia 

 

presented - July  2015

what it is

• An emergent pattern of convergent behaviour
• A platform to align & focus common objectives
• A way to speak to the market with a shared voice and vision
• Built on real actions and achievable next steps at every stage 

what it isn't

• A Technical Blueprint
• A System Definition
• A Prescribed Implementation

the learning services architecture

it's ABOut

using data to improve learning

clear forward direction

assets

market engagement

policy support

standards & agreements

common drivers

implementations

use

cases

data models

frameworks

projects

local & national alignment of benefits

local control of data 

focusing effect of national initiatives & investments 

use cases

• Common processes for data exchange.
• Keep the target small.
• Capture 90% of shared requirements.

market engagement

• Common interfaces for vendors
• No choice but to implement
• Levels playing field
• Allows school choice
• Forces capability improvement

to keep it simple

common approach

• Makes the above possible
• Allows sharing and reuse of implementation patterns & assets
• Consistent message to market

shared drivers

School

School

Authority

Whole of

System

• duty of care
• contemporary educational experience
• learner support
• compliance effort
• privacy
• well-informed procurements
• community engagement

 

• Risk management (investment, data, privacy), 
• evidence based decision making, 
• support innovation and devolution

 

• Student mobility, 
• bureaucratic efficiency, 
• market efficiency, 
• evidence based policy,
• nationally agreed and AG priorities (school autonomy, indigenous education, etc.)

 

business drivers

shared drivers

School

School

Authority

Whole of

System

• source of truth for student identity
• integrated learning environment

• student performance monitoring

• parent communication

• operational efficiency

• effective & safe integration with external service providers

• system level provision of services, 
• identity management, 
• system wide reporting, 
• common integration point for   external service providers, 
• operational efficiency, 
• apply system level policies

 

• nationally    consistent data, 

• streamlined data collections,

• national assessment and reporting infrastructure 

 

capability drivers

from then

• single vendor solutions
• tightly coupled
• costly to change
• hard to keep contemporary
• limited choice 

to now

• loosely coupled
• resource centric
• collaborating services
• school choice
• flexible data, decoupled from applications

without unmanaged risk

for students and schools

 

with the opportunity to

drive the market behaviours we want

All stakeholders need:

• Data Mobility
• Data Consistency
• Data Aggregation
• Data Privacy
• Data Control

School

School

Authority

Whole Of

System

a continuous improvement cycle

School adds value to system and whole of system stakeholders simply by engaging with market

 

Where market is fully informed, consistent, compliant and connected

 

Delivery to schools can be through local choice and suitability

 

Market rather than centre responds to needs

 

Authorities and systems benefit and add value through access and use of data

the benefits

• National reporting gets timely & consistent data to inform policy
• Schools can approach the market with a quality assured data set, can purchase consistent products, retain flexibility & choice
• Schools save repeated integration effort
• Systemic schools can have Identity & Privacy and integration support
• School Systems can optimise investment
• School Systems can control data flows
• School Systems can offer data analytics beyond any single product offering

national

use

cases

agreed business

processes

common

challenges

agreed data governance

privacy

agreed

data model

common

interfaces

aligned

infrastructure

shared

infrastructure

enable 

progress

piece by piece

shared 

consistent

MARKET

communication

Agreed Data Model - SBP

Agreed Data Governance

NSIP-SG, SIFAAMB/DSWG, OAWG, DSG

Shared Infrastructure

Frameworks, Privacy, Identity, Definitions

Aligned Infrastructure

Hubs, Brokers, Adaptors - Implementation Patterns

convergence

Architecture Patterns

systemic hubs

non-systemic hubs

• NSW
• ACT
• SA
• WA
• VIC
• TAS
• CEOM
• CENet
• NAPLAN 

• Data Hub Strategy, ESA
• SIF Data Push
• Vendor Engagement
• Framework Extensions

 

Use Cases

• Timetabling
• Attendance
• NAPLAN
• Finance
• Enrolment 

 

Assets

• SBP
• AU Data Model
• Framework
• HITS
• SIFODD
• NIMF/NIMF2
• Privacy Framework

implementation patterns

identified to date

• Full Hub
• Centralised Integration
• School/Non-Systemic

Full Hub Model

Central

Integration

Broker

 

Data Hub

Strategy

the priorities

ONLINE ASSESSMENT

privacy 

identity strategies

consistent access

forward progress

minimum consistent data set

e s d t n

longitudinal tracking

streamlined reporting

the proposition

That the

Learning Systems Architecture

forms the framing

for all NSIP stakeholders around:

 

Project Support,

Market Engagement,

NSIP Deliverables: 

Use Cases, SIFODD, NIMF, HITS

 

that we all actively promote the idea

and implementation of a

national

consensus architecture

actions

work in progress 

supporting LSA assets

• Full Architecture Report
• Use Cases
• ASL
• SIF Data Push
• SIFODD
• SIF Store & Forward Adaptor
• Data Hubs Strategy
• Market Engagement - Vendor Forums & Training
• Consistent Messaging
• Making a Difference with Data - Conference November.

actions

work in progress

supporting lsa implementations

• ACT SAS
• EduHub Victoria
• NSW
• CEOM Icon
• ESA Data Hubs Strategy

actions

work in progress

supporting market engagement

• 4 SIF Training Events in 12 months
• 27 Vendors on HITS
• 80% Identified Vendors targeted through use case roll-out

any questions

Contact

NSIP

http://www.nsip.edu.au