Today, nearly all innovation in education is happening through online learning experiences. By embracing online learning resources, schools can better identify learning needs and personalize academic solutions for their students at a scale that was not previously possible. To maximize their effectiveness, modern online learning resources require access to information about the learner typically stored in other information management systems. Enabling and supporting the critical data-sharing links between management systems and online learning products has become a must-have in today’s accountability-minded learning environments.
Ensuring those data-sharing links are operationalized for reliability and security can be make-or-break for achieving the hoped-for educational benefits of the online resource itself. Take away the links or introduce friction into the process, and suddenly, the viability of the online resource is not just questionable; it's a non-starter. Friction in the data links typically manifests in one of three ways, Friction Type 1. The information is named and organized inconsistently between systems, Friction Type 2. Rules for secure online transmission of the information do not exist, and Friction Type 3. Parties to the data links require payments to make data transfers.
To bring confidence and security to these data links, the edtech industry has convened multiple edtech standards and advocacy organizations, and ClassLink deeply supports all of them (1EdTech, Access 4 Learning Community, CEDS, Ed-Fi Alliance, and Project Unicorn). These standards organizations, each having their own area of focus to reduce obvious overlaps, have achieved much on friction points 1 and 2 above, but little is done about friction item 3. As the old expression goes, “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, without a reliable elimination of Friction Type 3, the educational benefits of innovation in online resources cannot be fully achieved. We recognize that this is a thorny subject, as the edtech industry has unfortunately become a bit accustomed to the unhelpful practice of data exchange fees. For this reason, it’s important to examine how this matter is handled in other industries.
The need to move data between systems is nothing new for enterprise and commercial companies, and secure and robust techniques have been developed to meet the demand. The most successful enterprise and commercial firms have avoided fees for data transfers, allowing for innovation to flourish while keeping costs lower for the end customer. The table below includes some examples of worthwhile data-sharing business models across different industries.
As the importance of data sharing between edtech products increases, choosing optimal data-sharing business models becomes critical. Data exchange fees stifle innovation and waste money. Deceptive business models that appear to have no direct cost, yet create a pyramid of indirect costs through veiled fees, can increase product prices across the industry. Additionally, models that have the appearance of selling data are legally problematic as student and personal data privacy laws bar the sale of such information. Nearly all of these laws put fiduciary responsibilities on school leaders. As these laws are inevitably tightened, so increases the risk to school organizations and their leaders for involvement in data broker business models.
What Comes Next
Today’s edtech products, and those that come tomorrow, will require ever more data sharing to be effective. Successful zero-cost data-sharing business models offer examples worth emulating. “Never waste a good crisis” has been a powerful motivator for leaders to make system-wide improvements, and upcoming school budgets will leave no room for unnecessary costs. There’s no better time than the present to remove unnecessary costs for essential learning tools.
Supporting data:
- Sales automation software platforms do not charge license fees for data exchanges. There are no vendor-to-vendor data transfer license fees associated with app integration on Salesforce. Cost Associated with App integration with Salesforce.
- Accounting software makers do not charge license fees for data exchanges. There are no vendor-to-vendor data transfer license fees associated with app integrations with QuickBooks Online. Cost Associated with App integration with QuickBooks.
- Mobile device makers do not charge license fees for health activity data integrations. Apple does not charge vendor-to-vendor data transfer license fees to app developers accessing health information on Apple devices. Cost Associated with app integration with health data on Apple iOS.
- DNA database platforms do not charge license fees for data exchanges. 23andMe does not charge vendor-to-vendor data transfer license fees for accessing DNA records. Cost Associated with App integration with 23andMe.