Continuous Improvement & Focused Monitoring
|
CIFMS Ad Hoc Task Force Meeting
May 20, 2008
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS)
Stakeholders Present:
Brian Anderson, Vaunce Ashby, Nissan Bar-Lev, Sister Patrice Colletti, Carol Noddings Eichinger, Cynthia Hirsch, Joanne Huston, Phil Knobel, Pete Knotek, Sheri Krause, Carolyn Madsen, Jeff Spitzer-Resnik, Don Rosin, Pat Schaumburg, Jan Serak, Mary Skadahl, Bonnie Vander Muelen, and Joan Wade
Facilitator:
Ann Bailey, North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC). Ann welcomed the group, led introductions and reviewed the agenda.
Topics:
OSEP Status Table of the Annual Performance Report; Determinations; Local Performance Plan Components; Procedural Compliance Update; Focused Monitoring: Focused Performance Review, Reading, Graduation; Scaling-Up Improvement
OSEP Status Table of the Annual Performance Report (APR) – Anita Castro, Assistant Director
- The APR response table from OSEP was reviewed. OSEP allowed states a one week time period for clarification this year.
- Indicator 2 was clarified. The data in the original table that was submitted was unclear, however the percentage was correct. DPI clarified.
- On Indicators 7 and 14 there is a requirement to have improvement activities span the entire term of the SPP. It was clarified in the SPP that the activities do span the 6-years of the plan.
- On Indicators 9 and 10 there was confusion regarding Wisconsin’s definition of noncompliance. Following OSEP’s guidance, Wisconsin revised its understanding of inappropriate identification.
- On tables 1, 3 and 4 OSEP thought the data was submitted late. However, OSEP’s data collection application was not functioning, which caused the data to appear to be late. In all cases, DPI had documentation of timely submission of data.
- Questions from stakeholders arose on the identification of districts and the use of early intervening services (EIS) funds. Districts are identified as having significant disproportionality based on data and are required to spend 15% of their IDEA funds on EIS.
SEA Determinations (PowerPoint)
- Wisconsin has not yet received its determination status from OSEP. When the state determination is received, LEA determinations will be decided. There are four determination categories:
- meets requirements;
- needs assistance;
- needs intervention; and
- needs substantial intervention.
- All compliance indicators are considered, but there is only one determination.
- Last year Wisconsin was determined as “needs assistance”. This was based on Indicator 12 being at 65.6%, an incorrect measurement of Indicator 15, and being at 89% on Indicator 16.
- LEA determinations from last year identified 78% of LEA’s met requirements and 22% needed assistance.
- For 2006-2007, OSEP will consider all compliance indicators, timely and accurate data, and any audit findings. Likewise Wisconsin will consider the same areas when making LEA determinations.
- Enforcement actions must be taken at both the SEA and LEA levels if an agency “needs assistance” for two consecutive years. SEAs must identify what technical assistance is utilized to meet requirements of IDEA.
- States are required to publicly report the state’s determination status. The determination letter will be posted on the DPI website.
Stakeholder Questions (DPI Response in Italics)
- Why is the state not meeting Indicator 12? In 2004-2005 there were different data collection systems between DPI and DHFS. In 2005-2006, DPI devised its own data collection system through the Local Performance Plan and as a result the data was more accurate. However, this data was collected in retrospect. Through a grant, Wisconsin is currently building a shared data collection system between the two departments. This system will allow county agencies to make electronic referrals to LEAs, and for LEAs to input key dates related to the IEP process as it occurs. This system will also allow the state to monitor LEA progress on this indicator on a more regular basis. Another issue that impacts clarity around early childhood transition requirements is the fact that the Part C regulations have not been finalized. DPI and DHFS are working on an interagency agreement to clarify requirements, but it has been delayed due to the lack of final Part C regulations. Lastly, some districts miss-reported students with summer birthdays; the department has provided guidance on this issue. Weekly meetings are taking place between DHFS and DPI around indicator 12. This indicator is a state and national priority.
Local Performance Plan Components – Nancy Fuhrman, Data Coordinator (Handout)
- The LPP is accessed through the Special Education Web Portal.
- Data related to Indicators 1-14 will be accessible through the LPP.
- Improvement plans (when needed) along with specific data collections will all be found within this portal.
- Nancy showed how a director of special education or DPI consultant would access this site to submit or read data.
- The public will also be able to view the district profile, but data will be redacted to protect student confidentiality.
- Improvement plan templates are being developed.
Stakeholder Questions (DPI Response in Italics)
- Are all data collected through the LPP, including graduation and dropout? No, the only data collected are specific to special education. All student data, which includes students with disabilities, are collected via the Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES).
- Is there a way for parents to see if a district is following up on their improvement plan? Improvement plans are monitored by DPI; this is not posted on the LPP website.
- Who gets the surveys from parents on Indicator 8? This is coordinated through North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC). Parents are randomly selected. The responses are sent to NCRRC.
- How can parents be anonymous in their responses to the parent survey if they have to ask the district for a paper copy? Districts know who received the paper survey, but the parent’s responses are anonymous because they are mailed to NCRRC.
- Will districts have to track who benefits from EIS? Yes.
- Is there any way for parents to access a district’s budget information? The amount awarded a district is posted on the DPI website. The maintenance of effort is monitored by DPI.
Recognitions – Stephanie Petska, Director
Stephanie recognized the consultants within the department who will be retiring this year: Kathy Laffin and Elliot Weiman.
Procedural Compliance Update – Elliot Weiman and Patricia Williams, School Administration Consultants
- Elliot Weiman and Patricia Williams gave an update on procedural compliance self-assessment (Summary).
Stakeholder Questions and Comments (DPI Response in Italics)
- Is DPI going to post LEA procedural compliance self-assessment results? DPI will summarize statewide trends in an information bulletin.
- The panel discussion on the procedural compliance self-assessment at WCASS and leadership conference is excellent.
- Examples of transition practices and other requirements that have high levels of noncompliance would be helpful.
- Following the self-assessment, are parents told why an IEP meeting has been reconvened (i.e., as a result of the DPI self-assessment)? DPI has not required LEAs to inform parents of the reason, but it is likely an LEA would explain this to a parent when scheduling the meeting. For instance, this could be included under "other" on the invitation for the purpose of the IEP meeting. A parent can request a copy of the self-assessment results from the DPI.
- In some districts, parent involvement in the procedural compliance self-assessment consisted of a 10-minute meeting. What direction has DPI given on parent involvement? DPI highly recommends parent involvement in the planning of the self-assessment process, reviewing the results, and in planning the corrective action plan. DPI will consider adding more clarity to the self-assessment report (i.e., how were parents involved). A district is more likely to be selected for validation if there is no parent involvement. Sometimes parents are included in the training process (viewing DPI MediaSite presentations along with the district staff).
- Does DPI verify there is an internal control system in place? Yes, the LPP consultant does it as part of verification process.
- The self-assessment is a great tool, and districts that are awaiting their self-assessment are already accessing the standards and training materials to bring the district into compliance.
Focused Monitoring and the Focused Performance Review – Dani Scott, Data Consultant
(Handout)
- DPI uses a data analysis activity called the Focused Performance Review throughout all stages of Focused Monitoring.
- DPI is in the process of scaling up FPR to have statewide impact.
- DPI is creating a manual that will allow districts to conduct their own FPR.
Stakeholder Questions and Comments (DPI Response in Italics)
- How long does DPI monitor a district to achieve results/at what point does DPI sanction? The FM process typically takes 3 years to begin to see the impact of improvement plan activities. DPI monitors implementation of improvement activities and trend data, including interim indicators (i.e., suspension rates) to measure progress on a short-term basis, as well as long-range indicators (i.e., graduation rates). DPI requires additional progress monitoring if an LEA is not meeting improvement activity deadlines.
- More rigorous sanctions may be necessary at some point.
- Stakeholders would like the literature review available by question (i.e., what research is behind each probe)?
- A district’s improvement plan is aligned with areas/rubrics of FM (i.e. positive school climate).
- Access to the general curriculum and environment is an IEP team decision.
- Research shows that access to the general curriculum and environment improves student results.
- DPI should consider the impact of “rigid reading programs” on student results.
Focused Monitoring of Reading – Carol Schweitzer, Program Consultant (Handout)
- District staff is often not surprised by the FM findings. DPI provides the motivation and accountability to keep districts moving forward and making progress toward the goals.
- District improvement planning teams include regular educators, special educators, principals, and other administrators.
- Common finding – special education teachers are not included in district in-service training related to reading curriculum or reading in the content areas.
- We are seeing improvement in reading because of NCLB; districts are paying attention to reading results of students with disabilities.
Stakeholder Questions and Comments (DPI Response in Italics)
- What is the impact of high school course selection and credit requirements on reading performance? Focused Monitoring on Reading has been used in elementary and middle schools. Many middle schools are providing language arts blocks and team teaching with special/regular education teachers. High schools will be included when FM is expanded to have statewide impact.
- Does DPI provide technical assistance to help districts with professional development? The SPDG helps districts analyze and develop professional development opportunities.
- In providing technical assistance, it is important to remember the individual needs of children and that a certain methodology may not work for all students with disabilities.
- Who from DPI participates in the onsite visit? Special education team consultants. Consultants from other teams have been part of the development of the FM process, including the focus forum questions and the identification of technical assistance.
- Districts need to provide more than just access to the general curriculum. The FM probes fully explore what it means to have access to the general curriculum.
- Along with accommodations for students with disabilities, there needs to be remediation of skills.
Focused Monitoring of Graduation - Troy Couillard
See PowerPoint on School Improvement.
- Expanding Focused Monitoring to have statewide impact
- LEA Improvement Indicators
1. Graduation
2. Dropout
3. Statewide Assessment
4. Suspensions/Expulsions
5. LRE Placement
6. Preschool settings
7. Preschool Outcomes
8. Parent Involvement
14. Post High School Outcomes
- Using what we have learned from Focused Monitoring
- Scaling-up (broader application)
- Focusing on the positive: recognition of promising practices
- Working with Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement (SIFI/DIFI)
Small Group Activity on Scaling up Improvement – Troy Couillard and Ann Bailey
World Café Questions regarding Scaling-Up Improvement
How do you see this change [in focused monitoring (FM)] as improving outcomes for students with disabilities?
- Would impact more students than current FM process.
- Should impact all students across the board.
- More focus on the data.
- Includes research-based improvement strategies.
- If done on a regular basis, districts will become more comfortable with using data and sharing "what works" to improve outcomes.
- It helps when you see promising practices from other districts.
- Able to find “like” districts more easily.
- Will help teachers see the bigger picture and empower them.
- Includes stakeholders in the data analysis, improve planning, and training.
- Promote more coordination between stakeholder groups.
- Addresses more indicators.
- Using the RSNs will distribute the information across the state.
- Continue to use data-based decision making. This may help reach down to the classroom level.
What are the positives in implementing this new system?
- Open lines of communication.
- Awareness of what other districts are doing.
- Greater understanding and therefore support (i.e. financial/funding) for initiatives.
- Improves staff understanding of student outcome data.
- More small school systems could be impacted.
- Use of the Professional Development model.
- Involvement of parents.
- Learning from other school districts.
- Identify best practices.
- Sharing information across the state of Wisconsin.
From your experience, what challenges do you see in implementing this model?
- Sustaining the will to change.
- Need buy-in of school board.
- Dealing with union issues.
- Developing a comfort level for districts to share and seek help.
- Spending too long on planning a new system.
- Not losing sight of the small districts and under-resourced school districts.
- Having more indicators may cause a loss in focus.
- How DPI will provide technical assistance on all of the indicators.
- Districts will need to understand the need for improvement.
- Parents will need to understand what it takes to be successful.
- Coordination of efforts without duplication.
- Maximizing impact.
- Public relations challenge.
- Working with districts that don’t utilize CESA/RSNs.
- Consider developing regional centers.
- Fitting it into professional development – districts are hard pressed to do the PD activities they have now.
- Districts will have to prioritize what they are going to work on.
- Obtaining and maintaining administrative buy-in.
- Connection between general and special education.
- Understanding of the data at all levels.
- Need for effective communication across all levels.
- Maintaining the commitment to outcomes .
- Urgency to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, especially in urban districts.
- MPS is an extremely complex system; there are circumstances outside the control of the district that impact student outcomes.
- One solution does not solve all problems in all districts. Each district needs to self-identify their own issues and then commit to figure out what they need to do to address them.
What role do you see playing (related to the role you represent on this committee) in rolling out this new information to additional stakeholders?
- Stakeholders need to fully understand the new monitoring system and be included in discussions about the development.
- At CESA PAC meeting – provide/share data and information and why it is important.
- District administration and CESA conduct data retreat and include School Information Services (SIS) Directors.
- Explain new monitoring system to the Tribes and answer questions that arise.
- Share information with families of color and disenfranchised families.
- Include parents as co-presenters with educators/on statewide projects.
- Give information to organizations to which stakeholders belong.
- Be the voice for students and teachers.
- Provide technical assistance and regional support as part of CESA/RSN.
- Be a liaison between CESA and district.
- Remind DPI of relevant issues that need to be addressed (such as accommodating the diversity within each region, accommodating child care needs in order to enable parent participation, etc.).
Next scheduled stakeholder meeting: December 16, 2008
For questions about this information, contact Anita J. Castro (608) 266-1781
Last updated on 7/22/2008 8:48:16 AM
|
Home
About Us
