ANDREW HANNAHSR. ASSOC. UNIVERSITY REGISTRAR

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

SESSION 150614 JULY 2013

Electronic Transcripts in Full Production: A Ten-Year

Retrospective1

Session Blurb

The University of Chicago Registrar’s Office, having been integral in the development of the electronic transcript industry and many related processes, can look back on the successes of the last decade, from concept in 2002 to SOP in 2013, where the majority of the transcripts the office produces are electronic.

2

3 04/21/23

•Founded in 1892

•15,000 students

•5,000 full-time Undergraduate students

•Central registration, student records, transcripts

•Quarter System

•First Heisman Trophy Winner

•Over 70 Nobel Prize winning faculty and alumni

•First self-sustaining nuclear reaction

•Identifying double-helix structure of DNA

•The Hubble of the Hubble Space Telescope

•The “Chicago School” of Economics

•The current President of the United States

Transcript Production c. 2002

Approximately 25,000 Hard-Copy Transcripts annually at $7 each.

Generated from legacy SIS on laser printers, via custom order screen.

Every order hand entered by @four full-time clerical-union staff . . .

Much time spent handling cash and checks for payment, receipts, deposits, wet-signed order forms, correspondence re: unpaid prior orders, phone calls re: what’s up with my order, etc.

Revenue = @$175,000 per yearCosts = @175,000 per year

4

5

What if?

New Registrar, Tom Black, started July 2002.In September of that year, posed an idea, what if. . .

Transcripts generated as .pdf’s (not printed) Sent via secure internet to designated recipients AND . . . the .pdf’s were secured against tampering

Ran it up the flag-pole with senior staff, University’s network security guru, and IT director for student systems.

General agreement, first two items were technically and operationally feasible . . . But no local expertise to address the third.

And what about FERPA?

6

The Proposal

The concept of a secure digital transcript . . . Avoids fraud Security settings controlled by originator Transportable, and security settings remain

Tom and Director of University’s Web Services published proposal in College and University.

Tom’s discussions with AAU Registrars gained allies in Jim Wager, Penn State; John Lenzi, Columbia; and David Yeh, Cornell

FERPA? Digital signatures for student portals to register and see grades becoming commonplace, what’s difference with ordering transcripts?

7

Taking the idea on the road

Tom presented, visiting as necessary, the concept to: AACRAO (Barmak Nassirian) American Council on Education Council for Higher Education Accreditation U.S. Dept. of Education National Student Clearinghouse EDUCAUSE

Tom arranged a meeting in Washington in March 2005 with representatives of most of the above.

Tom and Jim presented at SACRAO, and with John did a panel considering the concept at AACRAO in Spring 2005

8

The Black Box Solution

Simultaneously, Tom’s investigations of securable .pdf’s started with Adobe . . . Led to GEOTRUST, a company that partnered with Adobe in securing financial and pharmaceutical industry documents.

The “Blue Ribbon”, “Black Box”, “Digital Signature” entered our vocabulary as we learned about the way a .pdf can be, in a sense, check-summed and date-stamped, to verify its continued veracity.

And Penn State leaped forward with a January 2006 go-live . . . Developing solution in-house licensing its own black box.

9

Discovery to Production

Presentation at SunGard Summit in April 2006, displaying the design and use of “Certified Document Service” aka “secured .pdf” (also xml transcripts and virtual mail folders)

RFP for secured .pdf dated May 4, 2006 went to three vendors . . . two responded . . . AVOW was selected . . . their specs established Sept. 2006.

SNTials hired as local consultant/programmer . . . would use DTS and other PESC XML schema for data exchanges.

NSC agreed to facilitate orders and delivery University switched to a “lifetime” fee at matriculation for

transcripts to avoid routine transaction overhead and obtain “windfall” to fund project development.

System went live January 2007 . . . To date 80,000 secure .pdf transcripts have been produced and distributed.

10

Initial Production Scheme12

Presenting to the Industry

With process now in production at two AAU schools, Tom presented at AACRAO in March 2007 . . . Summarized thus: Electronic transcripts are here and there is mounting pressure to use

them. Multiple methods are available, and colleges may use more than one… Local culture and circumstances rationalize adoption of the method(s)… Hands-free fulfillment and delivery are here, and 24/7 processing is

possible! Competition will improve services and choices.

If digitally signed documents are tamper-proof, can the student/alumnus(a) deliver the document directly to the recipient? Why/Why not?

C/U article at that time . . . A Case for Electronic Transcripts by Tom and Jim Wager . . . Also podcast.

Joint Workshop at AACRAO (first of many subsequently), Penn State and University of Chicago, we did it . . . You can too.

13

How the Why/Why Not Questions Resonated

High School transcripts . . . An entirely separate, but parallel, industry—often with State incentives—quickly converted to electronic document exchange.

Undergraduate Admissions technology . . . Converted almost overnight to web-forms, common-app, and electronic folders.

Graduate Fellowships and grant administration . . . demanded an electronic document solution.

Consensus Response: Too Much Paper!FERPA? Digital signatures had too much inertia

14

AACRAO

What about AACRAO? Questions to AACRAO Board at annual

meetings . . . We wanted AACRAO to give its blessing to a

PDF solution or standard, in the same sense it gave its blessing to EDI via SPEEDE. AACRAO did not . . . The vendors rushed in to fill the vacuum.

SPEEDE committee’s parallel development . . . XML, PESC, and Texas Server . . .

15

Electronic Transcript Taskforce

In April 2008, Glenn Munson, VP for Records and Academic Services appointed E-Transcript Taskforce.

Sarah Harris (UIowa), Dave Stones (Southwestern U), Bob Morley (USC), Andy Hannah (UChicago) conducted surveys of AACRAO members and vendors.

Submitted report in October 2010, published Fall 2011 in College and University.

Identified “best fits” between school’s needs and technology solutions, EDI/XML and PDF’s.

16

Taskforce Recommendations

AACRAO should be proactive in advocating the acceptance of electronic transcripts in the marketplace

AACRAO should continue its efforts to bring together representatives of all the key stakeholders (registrars, admissions, and IT) to identify best practices

The “Registrars Transcript Guide” should continue to be updated as the technology evolves.

A public registry, accessible via the web, should be maintained by AACRAO of the official transcript sending and receiving protocols in use by the individual members.

AACRAO should develop and publish guidelines for the distributing and reception of e-transcripts.

17

The .pdf Home Run

Students log into a campus portal, authenticate themselves via LDAP, indicate they wish to “order transcript”

The log-in is transferred to the e-transcript vendor’s servers via Shibboleth

The students place transcript orders there, pay via credit card (if they pay at all)

Order information is transferred to the campus SIS via the XML transcript-order schema

Campus SIS checks for holds and if OK generates a .pdf transcript The .pdf transcript is sent to the vendor server via secure FTP or

secure protocol. Vendor may arrange for digital signage security to be incorporated

into the .pdf Vendor communicates retrieval instructions to the recipient Recipient retrieves the .pdf via secure http

18

Commentary on Vendors

Higher Education, particular Registrars, and vendors . . . an interesting mix . . .

19

The Vendors, .pdf Transcripts

Focusing on secured .pdf transcripts, ordering and processing . . . (years 2008-10)The National Student Clearinghouse developed and supported a model (transactional charges, mailed hardcopy transcripts primary mode) that did not fit with UChicago’s business plans.Other vendors used models utilizing registered partner relationships with recipients and virtual mail folders.AVOW put .pdf transcripts, to be delivered to (actually retrieved by) individuals, as the primary focus of their product line—which was most in accord with our needs.

20

2008-2009

Gabriel Olszewski became Registrar in March 2008.

The rube-goldberg (my term) scheme for transcript production:

NSC orders Registrar Staff SIS AVOW NSC

Could no longer be sustained.AVOW had developed its ADDS+ suite of services,

where all steps were automated, with the data exchanges using XML schema and shibboleth

Office staff were to be reorganized, with the implementation of these services as catalyst.

21

Reorganized Transcript Processes

Staff would no longer transcribe transcript order information . . . It would flow automatically into SIS from student and alumni portals with single-sign-on (LDAP and shibboleth)

E-Transcripts (.pdf’s) would be hands-off, 7x24. All transcript ordering was routed to the web forms, even for

alumni. “Mouse signature” (although hard to swallow to begin with) was

deemed OK by legal counsel, and therefore encouraged. No faxed orders were to be accepted. Correspondence with students and recipients about orders was

automated via vendor email. Any transactional charges handled by vendor . . . Monthly check

for credits mailed to us. Vendor admin site had audit-trails, diagnostics, logs.

22

Effect on Staffing

Three Full-Time transcript staff positions reduced to one.

The two with least seniority were given option to bid on new higher-classified positions in office . . . They chose layoff, instead.

All clerical-union positions in office to have same “project asst” classifications, four at one level, two (team leaders) at higher level . . . No “receptionist”, no “transcript clerk”, etc.

Changes (and the unified AVOW service) went “live” on September 1, 2009

23

Immediate Effects

E-Transcript volume jumped from a static 20% of all orders to almost 50%. (Some months it is @60%)

Salary and benefits, @$75,000/yr of dedicated transcript staff eliminated.

Postage (and Fed Ex) charges, reduced by one third.

Amount of paper (including Scrip-Safe security transcript paper), reduced by one third.

There are no typewriters in the Registrar’s Office.

24

25

Side-Tracks

XML Transcripts (Uchicago was also first) and AMCAS (2006-2007)

Digital Rights Management fiasco (2010-11)Size of a .pdf (2007 forward)MSU model, in-house solutions

26

Next up . . .

The exploded transcript “debate”. . . The meta-record or the micro-record . . .

Vendors . . . Parchment, formerly Docufide and AVOW

Vendors . . . The Texas Server and the Clearinghouse

XML header records for routing within servers—see SPEEDE-PESC work on this.

What is the value of a transcript? See article in Chronicle

27

28

Final Quick Essays on Electronic Transcripts

Electronic transcripts are here to stay. BUT . . .Paper transcripts won’t be going away

anytime soon. For the foreseeable future some students will still

benefit most from paper, but the majority will need and expect electronic.

We must structure our in-office processes so that hardcopy and electronic transcripts complement, rather than impede each other.

Our obligation as Registrars to maintain the security and accuracy of transcripts is absolute and permanent . . . The media and technologies we use to do so . . . are not.

29

Questions, Answers, Conversations

Andrew HannahSr. Assoc. University Registrar

ashannah@uchicago.edu773-702-7876

http://registrar.uchicago.edu

30