CIFMS Ad Hoc Task Force Meeting Summary, February 7-8, 2006

Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS)

Stakeholders Present:

Brian Anderson, Vaunce Ashby, Barb Behlen, Sister Patrice Colletti, Cynthia Hirsch, Phil Knobel, Pete Knotek, Julie Lidbury, Patricia Luebke, Carolyn Madsen, Donna Miller, Donald Rosin, Pat Schaumburg, Bonnie J. Vander Meulen, and Joan Wade

Small Stakeholder Group:

Nissan Bar-Lev, Joanne Huston, Sheri Krause, Jan Serek, Mary Skadahl, Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, and Patricia Yahle

Special Education Technical Assistance Providers:

Sandy Schmitz, Technical Assistance Director, NCSEAM

Welcome - Dr. Sandy Schmitz, National Center on Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)

Dr. Sandy Schmitz welcomed the stakeholders and reminded them that the small stakeholder group would continue to deliberate on state law and join the larger group when ready to present a proposal.

Focused Monitoring (FM) Updates - Anita Castro, Assistant Director, Special Education, DPI; Judy O'Kane, Program Consultant, DPI; Sandy Berndt, Program Consultant, DPI

FM Priority areas: Graduation Gap and Reading Achievement Gap

2005-06 Districts selected for Graduation Gap
- Milwaukee Public Schools
- Racine Unified School District
- Howard-Suamico School District
2005-06 Districts selected for Reading Achievement Gap
- Kenosha School District
- Manitowoc School District
- Rhinelander School District
Focused Monitoring Process
- Pre-onsite Activities
  - Selection process
  - FM Data Retreat
  - Survey (document) (results sample)
  - Policies and Procedures Review
- Onsite Activities
  - Opening
  - Focus forums
  - Interviews
  - Record Reviews
  - Closing
- Post-onsite Activities
  - Final report (template)
  - Improvement Plan (template)
  - Technical assistance
  - Verification

Positives: Focus is on improving student outcomes; collaborative effort between DPI and LEA; involvement of parent liaisons.

Challenges: Reading achievement gap analysis does not always identify those districts most in need of improvement. Most recent graduation data is not available at the state level for district selection.

Stakeholder Questions

Should the priority areas be aligned with the SPP indicators?
What are the targets that a district must meet in order to be removed from the list for FM?
How will other districts benefit from what we have learned during focused monitoring?

Data Systems Verification Pilot - Teresa Goodier, School Administration Consultant, DPI

2005-06 Districts selected for data systems verification
- Fond du Lac
- Janesville
Data Systems Verification is part of the DPI system of general supervision.
Aligns with Indicator #20 in SPP - timeliness and accuracy of data.
The data verification monitoring has expanded from a focus on reporting accurate environment data to a focus on data systems verification.
DPI is working with NCSEAM on the development of the data systems verification process.

Procedural Compliance Workgroup - Elliot Weiman, School Administration Consultant, DPI

DPI is responsible for providing oversight of procedural requirements for all LEAs during the six-year period of the SPP.
Aligns with Indicator #15 in SPP - General Supervision System.
Redesigning Procedural Compliance monitoring to focus on requirements related to the 20 indicators in the SPP and other statewide issues.
2 components - review of policies, procedures and forms; assessment of LEA implementation of the requirements.
DPI will divide the state into 5 cohorts - each year one cohort will perform a self-assessment of procedural requirements following specific procedures and standards.
DPI will conduct verification activities with the LEAs that conduct the self-assessment.
Noncompliance must be corrected within one year of identification.
DPI is developing a web-based reporting system for the self-assessment.

State Performance Plan - Anita Castro and Sandy Berndt, DPI

Wisconsin's State Performance Plan was recognized by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) as an exemplary plan and a model for other states.
Stakeholders played a key role in the development of the plan.
One revision to the plan was required - baseline data under Indicator #3A did not align with the target and required an amendment.

Overview of New Indicators in the State Performance Plan

Preschool Outcomes Indicator #7 - Mary Peters, Program Consultant, DPI

Disproportionality Indicators #9 & 10 - Donna Hart-Tervalon, Assistant Director, Special Education, DPI

Disproportionality Work Plan for 2006

Parent Involvement Indicator #8 - Tom Delaney, NCRRC; Pat Bober, Program Consultant, DPI

Powerpoint presentation - Tom Delaney
Parent Survey

Stakeholder Input

Stakeholders were asked to provide input on the length of the parent involvement survey.
Options discussed:
- Use Questions #1-25 of the NCSEAM Parent Involvement Survey
- Split-half (every other question)
- Use the entire NCSEAM survey (99 questions)
Decision: After some discussion, the stakeholders arrived at consensus on a split-half survey.
Rationale: A 50-question survey would provide information about student outcomes and parent involvement while not being overly burdensome to complete.
Action: NCRRC will develop a proposed split-half survey for DPI's review.

Post Secondary Outcomes Indicator #14 - Mary Kampa, Director of Special Education, CESA 11

SPP Indicator #14
Post High School Outcomes Year 5 Final Report
Summary of Activities on Indicator #14

Welcome and Update from Dr. Stephanie Petska, Director, Special Education, DPI

OSEP Visit

OSEP is finishing their cycle of verification visits and will conduct an onsite Data Verification Visit in Wisconsin during the week of November 6, 2006.
Stakeholders are required to be involved in the process.

State Law

The department will not support proposed state special education legislation without stakeholder consensus. The CIFMS Stakeholder group worked hard to arrive at consensus, but struggled. State Superintendent Burmaster responded by appointing a smaller stakeholder group and contracting with a mediator, Bill Holihan.
The small stakeholder group first met on December 8, 2005. They worked for nearly 50 hours face-to-face and reached consensus on February 7, 2006. A number of changes have been recommended to the bill. Senator Luther Olson has agreed to incorporate changes based on the consensus recommendation.
All participants demonstrated a deep understanding of the issues and represented their constituencies well. The stakeholder group was committed to working together and to preserving the positive relationships that have been developed over the years.
The proposal will be reported as a package to the stakeholders with the hope that the stakeholders will be able to support the small group's work.