Canadian Activities and the ARUCC Task Force Findings on the Groningen and Student Mobility

Romesh Vadivel, McGill University and ARUCC Vice-President

Joanne Duklas, Duklas Cornerstone Consulting and Chair, ARUCC Task Force Communications Committee

Canadian Context

National

examples:

Colleges &

Institutes

Canada,

Universities

Canada

ARUCC,

PCCAT,

CanPESC,

CUCCIO

Provincial

registrarial

groups:

BCRA,

ACRA,

AARAO,

WARUCC,

CREPUQ,

OURA,

CRALO,

OUAC

Transfer:

ONCAT,

BCCAT,

CATNB,

Campus

Manitoba,

ACAT, Sask

group

Working together across

Canada

• ARUCC – Association of Registrars of the Universities and Colleges of Canada; focused on registrarial and enrolment services best practice, research, standards development, and professional development

• PCCAT - Pan-Canadian Consortium on Admissions and Transfer; facilitates implementation of policies and practices the support student mobility and granting of transfer credit across Canada

• CanPESC – promotes PESC approved standards in Canada, provides Canadian expertise, and supports PESC and Canadian institutions in the adoption of these standards; promotes and facilitates inter-provincial transcript exchange

PCCAT http://pccatweb.org/pccat/

• Extensive national focus and efforts to advance student

mobility and collaboration

• Lead committee for the ARUCC PCCAT National Guide on

Transcript Standards and Transfer

• Participant and supporter of the ARUCC Groningen & Student

Mobility Task Force

• Facilitates inter-provincial collaborative opportunities -

provincial Councils on Admissions/Articulation and Transfer

signed MoU to advance further collaboration and have

explored potential sharing of technology platforms

CanPESChttp://www.pesc.org/interior.php?page_id=215

• Active participants in both the ARUCC PCCAT

Transcript & Transfer Guide and the ARUCC

Groningen & Student Mobility Task Force

• Currently working on how institutions are identifying

other institutions within their SIS, and are following the

Global Data Mobility Task Force

• Already have one successful interprovincial exchange,

with PESC XML transcripts between BC and ON

Samples of Provincial

Collaborative Initiatives

• Nova Scotia is currently developing a custom-built HS

to PSE transcript exchange, based on PESC schemas

(launching Fall 2016)

• Ontario OUAC has embraced use of PESC XML

• CanPESC recently presented all of these initiatives in

June at the ARUCC 2016 conference

Samples of Provincial

Collaborative Initiatives

• British Columbia’s

EducationPlannerBC.ca

emerging – system led

approach to create a

common online application

service which will

consolidate existing

government-supported

advisory and application

resources for students

Samples of Provincial

Collaborative Initiatives

• Alberta - Since going online, ApplyAlberta saw more than 1,063,000

applications submitted through the system in XML format and over

1,305,000 high school and post-secondary XML transcripts transferred

between member institutions.

• Currently updating the ApplyAlberta system to comply with specific PESC

Standards: Admissions Application v1.3.0, College Transcript v1.6.0,

HS Transcript v1.5.0, Transcript Request & Response v1.4.0 – This is a

major undertaking involving updates to the Student Information Systems

(SIS) at all member institutions in addition to the ApplyAlberta core

system. The Alberta Ministry of Education is also taking this opportunity to

update the content of provincial high school transcripts – something that has

not been done in any significant way for more than two decades.

ARUCC Groningen & Student

Mobility Task Force – a

National Collaboration

Task Force Mandatehttp://arucc.ca/en/resources/task-force-groningen.html

• The Groningen Task Force will champion the engagement of Canadian institutions in the implementation of the Groningen Declaration by fostering an ethos, culture and network that removes impediments for data portability, and provides the foundation for student mobility. These benefits will be realized throughout the various educational jurisdictions across Canada by fostering a provincial and/or a national model of electronic data exchange that serves Canada and the world.

• Membership from across Canada – formally supported by PCCAT and CanPESC; work on Groningen endorsed by CUCCIO (National CIO organization)

• Task Force created in Fall 2014

• May 2015: ARUCC became a signatory to the Groningen Declaration Network

• Summer/Fall 2015: Awareness Raising

• Winter/Spring 2016: Consultation (Canadian survey)

• ARUCC 2016: Report on findings and recommendations

Task Force Consultation

Survey

• Launched in April 2016; closed in May 2016

• 97 respondents (Canadian postsecondary

institutions, some pathway organizations and

provincial hubs)

Snapshots of some results

Responses by region

By organization type

By PSI type

By Primary SIS

Is your Organization SENDING

transcript data electronically?

And RECEIVING Transcript

data electronically?

Standards?

• The majority of institutions:• SEND by PESC XML, and

• RECEIVE by EDI.

• There is a range of standards used, including PDF.

• This variety has been reported by Groningen Network members and is the reason that forcing the adoption of a particular standard is not considered ideal.

• Standards are considered important by those responding to the Canadian survey.

70% said ‘Yes’

Participation timeline for engaging in a

pan-Canadian data exchange network?

47%

within

5 years

Survey – sample supportive

comments from participants

• “Given the technological capacities and opportunities that

already exist, we are behind the game in terms of how we look

at and handle paper. This system would create a paradigm

shift in terms of how we look at and treat transcripts, marks,

applications, transfer credit, etc. I think it is a great idea.”

• “The biggest benefit from my perspective would be in the

efficient processing of applications for admission and in

the support of students and graduates who need us to be

able to confirm their educational history for other

institutions and organizations.”

Survey results – sample

comments about risks

• “Complicates and augments processes already in

place at each institution (the solution should be

transparent to the student)”

• “Data security, buy-in, sustainability”

• “…(variable) capacity and capability in IT shops at

each institution. Suggest doing through a more

centralized model to mitigate this challenge/risk.”

Other considerations?

• “We need to keep a finger on the pulse of what else is going

on in the world of data exchange, e.g., PESC's EdExchange,

Groningen pilots, partnership between PESC and Groningen,

etc.”

• “financially, this is likely to affect each institution with regard to

the updating of systems or even the resources allocated”

• “Building on successes of organizations that already have

procedures in place can disadvantage

institutions/organizations that have not started down the

pathway; there will need to be some consideration for

disparate levels of institutional readiness (even if all are willing

and want to participate); smaller institutions will not have the

same level of resources to participate/catch up.”

Findings

1. There is strong support to further explore a pan-

Canadian data exchange network model.

2. Established electronic data exchange

infrastructure exists that can be leveraged in

furthering this initiative.

3. A pan-Canadian model would need to respond to

the variability and complexity that exists in the

sector.

4. Data security and privacy are paramount in any

data exchange project.

Findings

5. The key principles strongly resonated with survey respondents.

6. The expected benefits also resonated strongly with survey respondents. Of note, there was a strong perception that a pan-Canadian data exchange network would result in key benefits for students in terms of student service and mobility.

6. Survey participants requested more information and/or development regarding costs, resource implications, system maintenance or sustainment, and governance.

The findings support the working model

presented to ARUCC membership by the

Working Group in 2015.

Working Model

National Network

Provincial application & transcript centres

Provincial credential

evaluation agency

Professional accreditation organizations (teachers, health

professionals, etc)

Individual institutions

Working model

National network

coordinating exchange

among experienced

provincial hubs, agencies,

institutions, world

Groningen

Network

Task Force Recommendations

The national survey results demonstrate that

there is strong support for the initiative. The

Task Force recommends that ARUCC should:

Recommendation 1

1.Continue the exploration and development of a

Canadian data-exchange model that:

1. is accessible in both French and English;

2. builds on and complements the successes and

expertise of provincial models;

3. is scalable and will fill the gaps in service to

students in each region;

4. provides a cohesive and well-organized point

of contact to international data exchange

networks; and

5. Supports the exchange of authentic, reliable

data in a secure and standard manner.

Recommendation 2 & 3

2. Adopt these guiding principles: flexible, cohesive,

scalable, single secure point of contact.

3. Adopt these guiding benefits:

a. improve service to students,

b.improve student mobility through efficient data-

sharing,

c.advance the national dialogue in support of

student mobility and success,

d.align with the national and international goals of

other Canadian postsecondary and pathway

organizations.

Recommendation 4

4. With ARUCC taking the lead, create a governance

model of a national joint steering committee to provide

oversight.

a) Representation includes postsecondary

institutions, provincial data-sharing hubs,

CanPESC, PCCAT, and CUCCIO.

b) First task is hire a resource person to mine

survey data, gather high level requirements and

aspirations, create a notice of interest, and

establish a business case to support and advance

the initiative.

Next Steps

1. Create governance body

2. Hire a resource person

3. Fundraise

Thank you!