CIFMS Ad Hoc Task Force Meeting
May 15, 2007

Focused Monitoring, Local Performance Plan, and Determinations

Stakeholders Present:

Brian Anderson, Nissan Bar Lev, Barb Behlen, Sister Patrice Colletti, Cynthia Hirsch, Phil Knobel, Pete Knotek, Don Rosin, Jan Serak, Mary Skadahl, Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, Bonnie Vander Meulen, and Patricia Yahle

Special Education Technical Assistance Providers:

Dr. Sandy Schmitz, Technical Assistance Director, National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)
Thomas Delaney, Education Specialist, North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC)

Welcome

Stephanie Petska, State Director of Special Education, welcomed the stakeholders and introduced new staff. Dani Scott is the new Data Consultant on the Special Education Team and will assist with data analysis to improve student outcomes. Troy Couillard is the new Assistant Director of Special Education responsible for the results indicators, focused monitoring, and response to intervention. Stephanie will continue to work with the two state schools, the disproportionality indicators, and IDEA complaints. Anita Castro, will maintain responsibility for the compliance indicators, including the procedural compliance self-assessment, and timely and accurate data.

Special Education in Plain Language

• Nissan Bar Lev gave the stakeholders a handout of Special Education in Plain Language and announced it is available for download from the DPI website.
• DPI was encouraged to print a sufficient number of copies of Special Education in Plain Language so that people who do not have access to computer technology and copiers may receive the publication.

Overview – Anita Castro, DPI Assistant Director of Special Education

• The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) approved DPI’s response to the single finding of noncompliance identified during their verification visit in November 2006. DPI will meet the requirement to collect child count data between October and December by requiring districts to update their third Friday in September enrollment count on October 1.
• The stakeholders received copies of the revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR).
• The State Performance Plan (SPP) is aligned with the goals of the New Wisconsin Promise (see handout).
• DPI monitors school districts through its system of general supervision which includes the SPP, the Local Performance Plan, the procedural compliance self-assessment, model IEP forms, model policies and procedures, as well as state complaints and due process hearings. This system may be depicted using a triangle with universal, selected, and targeted activities associated with the 20 indicators of the SPP (see handout).
• A summary chart of the indicators shows areas of progress and slippage (handout). The state has maintained or made progress on 80% of the indicators.

Local Performance Plan (LPP) – Nancy Fuhrman and Dani Scott, DPI Staff

• IDEA requires DPI to report to the public on the status of each local education agency (LEA) in meeting the 2005-06 targets in the SPP for the indicators that apply to LEAs (1-6 and 12).
• At this time, DPI is not required to publicly report on the "new indicators" for which baseline was established in 2005-06. Eventually data for Indicators 1-14 will be posted.
• DPI will meet the public reporting requirement by posting the data to the DPI website via the Local Performance Plan. This will provide a snapshot of a district’s data compared to state averages, as well as downloadable files of all districts.
• The stakeholders viewed a demonstration of the public posting of data via the Local Performance Plan.
• DPI is developing a Longitudinal Data System (LDS) to be in place by 2009 (see PowerPoint).
• The plan is to fold special education reporting requirements into the LDS.
• The goals of LDS are to reduce duplication of LEA data requirements, improve data accuracy, and increase public access to data.
• The stakeholders viewed a demonstration of a Proficiency Summary Report on the LDS.
• An online survey is available on the DPI website for the public to provide feedback on DPI’s current data reporting efforts (survey link).

National Perspective on Focused Monitoring – Sandy Schmitz, NCSEAM

• Eight components of General Supervision: State Performance Plan (SPP); onsite and off-site monitoring; policies and procedures; data on processes & results; improvement, correction, incentives and sanctions; dispute resolution; technical assistance & professional development; and financial audits.
• The State Performance Plan is the state’s blueprint for its work.
• General supervision is a means to the SPP.
• OSEP does not require DPI to conduct onsite monitoring visits as long as the department has a robust system of general supervision.
• DPI’s general supervision system consists of the 8 components.
• DPI currently conducts onsite visits through focused monitoring, data verification, and procedural compliance self-assessment validation.
• Onsite focused monitoring is one component of a general supervision system.

Focused Monitoring (FM) Update - Eva Kubinski and Sandy Berndt, DPI Staff

• DPI uses 3-year trend data to select districts for FM onsite.
• Prior to onsite, districts conduct a Procedural Compliance Self-Assessment, Parent Survey, and Focused Performance Review.
• Onsite procedures include focus forums and interviews with parents, staff, and adult students with disabilities (when appropriate), and a review of policies and procedures.
• Post-onsite, districts receive the DPI report of findings and develop and implement an improvement plan to address the findings.
• DPI staff highlighted positive outcomes and considerations for improving the FM selection process (see handout).
• Focused monitoring is the most intensive intervention; DPI has capacity to conduct 6 per year. DPI is currently working with 11 FM districts and will add another 5 next year (in addition to MPS each year).

Stakeholder Discussion – Sandy Schmitz, Facilitator

Questions for stakeholders to consider:

• What should DPI investigate through focused monitoring?
  • Indicator
  • Gap
• In which districts should DPI conduct focused monitoring?
  • Random
  • Enrollment groups

Discussion: In which districts should DPI conduct focused monitoring?

• It is not an efficient use of time and resources for DPI to go onsite when a district only has a small number (e.g., 3) of students eligible to graduate. However, small districts need intensive assistance, too. There is concern that unless DPI conducts an onsite visit, small districts will be unable to leverage change. Need to consider altering the FM process in small school districts so the amount of resources is limited.
• When a small district is identified for FM based on ranking, DPI should analyze the data further to determine if an onsite is appropriate.
• DPI can be effective in helping FM districts set priorities.
• The goal of FM is to identify districts most in need of improvement and target resources on those districts.
• Original use of enrollment groups was to compare like districts and monitor districts of all sizes. By using enrollment groups for comparability we’re assuming the key variable is size. Are the needs of the districts within an enrollment group similar?
• Need to consider how are we are going to impact the most students.
• There is a better chance of meeting state targets if DPI monitors larger enrollment groups, because there is impact on more students.
• Rank each of the smaller enrollment groups (5, 6, and 7) individually; select lowest performing district in each and conduct further analysis to determine if onsite is needed.
• Eliminate random district selection.
• Use rankings and other data to inform selection (e.g. history of complaint decisions against a district, DPI knowledge of a district).
• Use the stakeholder group to affirm small district selections for onsite focused monitoring.
• DPI isn’t solely responsible for effecting change in a district; changes will only come through a whole-community effort that includes working through cultural change and developing ownership of the issues.
• Sanctions and incentives – require districts to use funding or give funding to bring in (national) consultants on a given topic.

Discussion: What should DPI investigate through focused monitoring?

• Use indicators, not the gap, for selection.
• Aligning with SPP indicators will also cause alignment with NCLB (achievement and graduation) and will support efforts to close the achievement gap.
• Conduct an analysis of district selection using rank based on indicators + rank based on gap.
• DPI should use some discretion to identify districts for FM – use data for the initial cut combined with richer decision making process.
• Let the department determine how to consider analysis.
• Combining FM indicators fits in with holistic approach to improving outcomes.
• Improving reading impacts other indicators.
• It is difficult to separate the impact of one indicator on another.
• We don’t want to lose the value of exploring a single indicator in depth.
• The department should explore combining indicators for selection of districts (e.g., graduation and reading).
• DPI should use discretion in determining how to select the “floaters” (the two additional districts).
• Involve stakeholders in a feedback loop, instead of involving in selection of districts.
• Consider using ranking on indicators, geographic location, due process hearing decisions, complaint decisions, and PTI data to select districts for FM.
• Ranking within enrollment groups is relative to peer group and is arbitrary.

Additional Data (requested by stakeholders)

• Existing enrollment groups and their percentage of the state’s special education population:
  1) 10.26%
  2) 18.22%
  3) 14.71%
  4) 15.36%
  5) 11.33%
  6) 15.92%
  7) 14.19%
  

Stakeholder Recommendations:

1. Establish 4 enrollment groups – maintain enrollment group 1, combine enrollment groups 2 & 3, maintain enrollment group 4, and combine enrollment groups 5-7. Select one district from each group + two additional districts from any enrollment group based on ranking and other data/information.
2. Eliminate randomly selected districts for FM.
3. DPI should use their discretion to determine how to select districts for FM.

LEA Determinations - Tom Delaney, NCRRC (PowerPoint)

Next Meeting: July 24, 2007

For questions about this information, contact Anita J. Castro (608) 266-1781

Last updated on 2/22/2008 1:21:52 PM