CIFMS Ad Hoc Task Force Meeting
July 24, 2007

CIFMS Updates, Determinations, RtI, and SLD Criteria

Stakeholders Present:

Brian Anderson, Vaunce Ashby, Nissan Bar Lev, Barb Behlen, Sister Patrice Colletti, Cynthia Hirsch, Joann Huston, Phil Knobel, Pete Knotek, Sheri Krause, Carolyn Madsen, Don Rosin, Jan Serak, and Patricia Yahle

Special Education Technical Assistance Providers:

Thomas Delaney, Education Specialist, North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC)

• Tom Delaney welcomed the stakeholders, reviewed the agenda, and facilitated the meeting.

Special Education in Plain Language

• Nissan Bar Lev, CESA 7 Director of Special Education, distributed the final version of the publication.
• A Spanish version will be available in approximately two weeks.
• The website and CD are under construction in English and Spanish.
• Stephanie commended Nissan for his dedication to the mission and the additional copies made available and distributed to the public in response to stakeholder input. The stakeholders joined Stephanie in thanking Nissan.
• Tom Delaney commended the state for the publication; he is not aware of any other state with a similar publication.
• Louisiana has approached the state to work with them to develop a similar publication.

Focused Monitoring Update - Troy Couillard, DPI Assistant Director of Special Education; Dani Scott, Data Consultant

PowerPoint Presentation

District Selection

• Four enrollment groups have been established from which to select districts for focused monitoring.
• Focused monitoring will focus on improving outcomes in graduation and reading achievement as measured by the State Performance Plan Indicators 1 and 3.
• Three scenarios for district selection were considered. Handout
  • Six districts will be selected each year. Using three years of trend data, two districts will be selected based on Indicator 1 and two districts based on Indicator 3. The remaining two districts will be selected using a combination of gap analysis and indicator analysis.

Evidence of Change

• The department is identifying what evidence of change is necessary for a district to be released from focused monitoring activities.
• A three-year process is anticipated (not counting the initial onsite year).
• There is flexibility built into the process to allow for unique situations within districts.

Promising Practices

• Information was shared on a number of promising practices that have been identified to improve reading and graduation rates in FM districts.

Technical Assistance Website - Tom Delaney, NCRRC

• The North Central Regional Resource Center has created a State Performance Plan Information Support System website. – http://www.northcentralrrc.org/sppinformationsupportsystem/index.aspx
• It is essentially a doorway to a database of research-based resources associated with indicators in the state performance plan.
• It is easily updated.
• May be customized for individual states. For instance, a state may chose topic areas to include on their website. NCRRC will work with the state education agency to customize and organize information.
• Can add state’s resources to database.
• Free of charge to the state.
• Includes eight types of information.
  • Academic literature
  • Definitions
  • Position statements
  • Court rulings
  • Evidence based practices
  • Exemplary sites
  • FAQ
  • Online resources and links

State and Local Education Agency Determinations - Anita Castro, Assistant Director, DPI, and Dani Scott, Data Consultant, DPI

See dpi.wi.gov/sped/spp-determinations.html

State Determinations

• One press release stated that 4/5 of states are falling short of federal requirements for educating students with disabilities.
• On June 15, 2007, DPI received letter from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of Wisconsin’s determination status. Wisconsin needs assistance in meeting the requirements of IDEA.
• One of four determinations is possible: meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, needs substantial intervention.
• To make the determination, OSEP examined data associated with SPP Indicators 12, 15, 16, and 17.
• On Indicator 12, WI was at 65% and must be at 100% compliance.
  • DPI is collaborating with the Department of Health and Family Services to improve data collection for this indicator and on technical assistance efforts to counties and LEAs.
• On Indicator 15: DPI needed to count the number of findings corrected, not the number of districts that corrected noncompliance within one year.
• On Indicator 16: DPI was at 89% and must be at 100% compliance. DPI is continuing to make progress in this area.
• For the 2006-07 determinations, OSEP will also consider Indicators 9, 10, 11 and 13. OSEP will consider additional data elements under Indicator 20.
• There is a proposal to eliminate Indicator 4 from the SPP; the proposal is posted on the Federal Register for public comment.

LEA Determinations

• IDEA requires each State to make determinations of local districts.
• This is the first year for this requirement.
• DPI carefully considered data and criteria; DPI took a conservative approach in making the determinations.
• To make the determinations, DPI considered only those indicators required by OSEP.
• The same four categories of determination must be used: meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, needs substantial intervention.
• DPI must inform each district of its determination. There is no requirement to publicly post the LEA determinations.
• There are specified enforcement actions associated with the determinations.
  • If a district is found to need assistance for two consecutive years or needs intervention for three consecutive years there are specified sanctions applied. If a district needs substantial intervention, the sanctions may be applied immediately.
• 2005-06 Determinations
  • 78% of districts in Wisconsin have been identified as meeting the requirements of IDEA.
  • 22% of districts in Wisconsin have been identified as "needs assistance."
• Determinations criteria
  • Districts will be notified of their determination status prior to the beginning of the school year.
• DPI Special Education staff is currently working collaboratively with ISES staff to provide joint communication to districts on accurate data collection.
• Referrals from Part C agencies
  • Part C also has an indicator regarding transition to Part B.
  • Reimbursement to Part C agencies is associated with timely referrals.
  • Best practice is to refer 90 days prior to child’s third birthday, and some counties refer 120 days prior to the third birthday.
• Communicating to the public about LEA determinations
  • There is no requirement to publicly report LEA determinations.
  • Districts must be notified of their determination status.

OSEP/Westat Data Conference

• Nissan Bar Lev, Anita Castro and Nancy Fuhrman shared a brief review of their presentation on the role of stakeholders in data based decision making which they gave at the OSEP/Westat Data Conference this summer. (PowerPoint)

Suggestions for Technical Assistance to Meet 100% Compliance on Indicator 12

• Local interagency agreements are critical.
• Provide information on IEP process to county providers.
• Provide on-going technical assistance.
• Provide information on the specific issues that make districts out of compliance.
• Provide training on how to count and report students accurately.

Procedural Compliance Monitoring - Elliot Weiman and Patricia Williams, DPI School Administration Consultants

Background

• The Procedural Compliance Self-Assessment is one component of procedural compliance monitoring.
• Model policies and procedures are being reviewed currently by DPI.
• The self-assessment includes a validation of the process in a sample of districts and a verification process for all districts.
• 37 requirements are assessed.
• Require all noncompliance be corrected timely - as soon as possible and no later than one year from identification.
• Require assurance that individual student errors are corrected and "internal control system" to identify and correct district-wide errors.

2006-07 School Year Cohort

• During the 2006-07 school year, 90 public agencies (including charter schools) conducted a procedural compliance self-assessment.
• Preliminary results look positive.
• Transition requirement was the most challenging requirement for districts. Reason was the standard changed by the national technical assistance center just prior to the self-assessment.
• Technical assistance to districts will include a bulletin of findings.

Validation process

• Some random districts included in validation process, all areas of the state included.
• Improving the self-assessment process in response information learned during validations (i.e. some of the standards were not clear and will be revised to provide clarity).
• Involvement of parents in ad hoc self-assessment committee is encouraged; it is one of the criteria used to select districts for validation.

Verification process

• Every district has verification activities via their LPP consultant.
• Currently verifying correction of noncompliance identified during 2006-07 self-assessments.

2007-08 School Year

• Districts were notified in May.
• Districts in the monitoring cycle conduct the procedural compliance self-assessment and also data collection for the sampling indicators.
• DPI is making preparation for the next self-assessment
  • Revisions to some of the standards are due to new interpretations from OSEP.
  • Improving web based reporting application.
  • Improving directions.
  • Revised webcast and training materials posted by September.
  • LEA self-assessment report due December 1, 2007.
• LEAs may conduct interviews during the summer.

Response to Intervention (RtI) - Kathy Laffin, DPI Program Consultant

Handout

• Broad based stakeholder group.
• Consensus vision statement developed.
• Five year goals developed.
• Technical assistance includes REACh Initiative - data is reflecting collaboration between regular and special education.

SLD criteria

Hearing Notice

• The intent is to maintain an incidence rate of 2-5%; not promoting an increase in incidence.
• Public hearings schedule was provided along with proposed criteria.
• Task force and steering committee members include individuals from IHEs.
• Follow guidelines: align with federal requirements and stakeholder recommendations.
• Section 5 reflection of current exclusionary factors; remains the same.
• Section 6 important addition – one person qualified to assess data on individual rate of progress.
• Section 7 language from the federal rule.
• Data based decision.
• Process:
  • Post public hearings.
  • Hold public hearings.
  • Synthesize information.
  • Revise proposed rules, if needed.
  • Submit to legislative committee.
  • May hold additional hearings.
  • Administrative rules go into effect immediately if legislature doesn’t act.
• Recommending they go into affect at start of school year following adoption.
  • Hope to be approved by July 2008.
  • Gives time for capacity building.

Data Verification Visits - Dani Scott, DPI School Administration Consultant

• Data Verification visits were conducted in small, medium, and large districts during the 2006-07 school year.
• Focused on accurate reporting of education environment for ages 6-21.
• Included a desk audit and onsite interviews.
• During 2007-08 SY, will continue to focus on educational environment, but expand to emphasize ISES data collection process.
• Working with ISES consultants at DPI to develop and conduct training.
  • Will provide technical assistance on this new data collection and encourage special education directors to work with ISES data coordinators.
  • Discipline training – invite DSE
  • Monthly conference calls hosted by ISES data consultants.
  • Special training to people new to ISES data collection process.

Introduction to Special Education - Pat Bober, DPI Program Consultant

• DPI publication has been updated.
• Copies were provided. http://www.specialed.us/pl-07/pl07-index.html
• Notice the artwork from students from Wisconsin School for the Deaf.
• Mary Skadal narrates the DVD.

Next Scheduled Meeting: December 11, 2007

Purpose: Establish baseline and targets for Indicator 14. Review and revise other indicators, as needed.

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

Last updated on 2/22/2008 1:21:53 PM