Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS)
Stakeholders Present:
Brian Anderson, Vonce Ashby, John Ashley, Nissan Bar Lev, Barb Behlen, Sister Patrice Colletti, Cynthia Hirsch, Phil Knobel, Sheri Krause, Julie Lidbury, Donna Miller, Donald Rosin, Patricia Schaumburg, Jan Serak, Mary Skadahl, Bonnie Vander Muelen, Joan Wade
Special Education Technical Assistance Providers:
Sandy Schmitz, Technical Assistance Director, NCSEAM
DPI Staff Members Present:
Sandy Berndt, Pat Bober, Anita Castro, Janice Duff, Sheila Ellefson, Tony Evers, Nancy Fuhrman, Teresa Goodier, John Humphries, Jack Marker, Margaret McMurray, Brent Odell, Judy O'Kane, Elliot Weiman
Information Update by Stephanie Petska, Director of Special Education, DPI
Stephanie Petska welcomed the stakeholders and introduced new members, John Ashley, Executive President of WASB, and Bonnie Vander Muelen, parent of a child with a disability. Stephanie reviewed a memo
from State Superintendent Elizabeth Burmaster establishing a small group of the stakeholders to focus on changes to state law that may be necessary as a result of IDEA 2004. Seven group members will work in a mediated process to come to consensus around state law and bring their proposal back to the larger stakeholder group. Stephanie reiterated the department's commitment to the stakeholder process. Each small group member may bring one additional member to participate in the process with them. The smaller group will establish their own rules and roles. Stephanie emphasized the importance of the relationships that have been built and the work that has been accomplished as a result of these relationships.
Introduction - Dr. Sandy Schmitz, National Center on Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)
Sandy commended Wisconsin for involvement of stakeholders in many special education issues, including the early involvement of stakeholders in the development of the State Performance Plan.
Review of State Performance Plan (SPP) - Margaret McMurray, DPI Consultant
Setting Targets and Goals - Dr. Sandy Schmitz
- Sandy reviewed a chart of Wisconsin's goals and targets with the stakeholders. (Chart)
- Sandy explained that goals and targets for the compliance indicators are set at 100% by the Department of Education; goals and targets for disproportionality are set at 0%.
- Some indicators are new and do not require goals until February 2007. They require the development of a plan for collection of data.
- Sandy reviewed the ground rules and the decision making process; large group process using a round-robin technique so that all members have an opportunity to be heard. A voting process has been used to set targets and goals in previous sessions, so the voting process will continue for the purpose of setting targets and goals.
- The goal for the day is to set a target for 2006 and six-year goals for each of the remaining three indicators: rates of suspension/expulsion, preschool environment, and mediation.
Data Presentation on Indicator #19 Mediation - Patti Williams, DPI Consultant
- Patti presented background information on the Wisconsin Special Education Mediation System (WSEMS) including WSEMS data. (Powerpoint Presentation)
- A memo from Dr. Eva Soeka, Director of the Marquette University Center for Dispute Resolution and WSEMS partner, was shared with the stakeholders. (Document)
Summary of Discussion:
The memo from Dr. Soeka contained the reasoning for setting the target at 75%. It was generally felt that a range of 75-80% settlement rate would maintain a high standard, but would not apply pressure on mediators to settle disputes or jeopardize parents' trust in the system.
Stakeholder Input:
Set 2006 target for mediation agreements at 75% and the 2011 goal at 80%.
Data Presentation on Indicator #6 Preschool LRE - Nancy Fuhrman, DPI Data Specialist; Mary Peters, DPI Early Childhood Consultant
- Nancy gave a presentation on preschool environment data. (Chart)
- OSEP has directed a new way of calculating the baseline data for early childhood educational environments. Included in the calculation are settings L-General Education Environment; N-Home; P-General Education Part-time/Special Education Part-time.
- A setting is considered special education if designed specifically for children with disabilities.
- Mary provided background information on preschool options for early education.
Summary of Discussion:
A 2011 goal of 50% is rigorous. It was acknowledged that this goal will be challenging, especially for small districts with fewer preschool options from which to choose. Statewide preschool initiatives, including presentations on "Preschool Options," will positively impact awareness of early education options and increase the percentage of children in settings with typically developing peers.
Stakeholder Input:
Set 2006 target at 38%; set 2011 goal at 50%.
Data Presentation on Indicator #4 Suspension/Expulsion - Nancy Fuhrman, DPI Data Specialist; John Humphries, DPI Consultant
- School district data on students with disabilities removed from school for more than ten days was presented: districts ranked high to low, districts ranked high to low by enrollment group, districts ranked by standard deviation.
- Removals include out-of-school suspensions and expulsions totaling more than ten school days in a school year.
- WI does not collect this data on children without disabilities, so the comparison is among districts in which children with disabilities have been removed from school for more than 10 days.
- John explained the concept of standard deviation (SD).
- The strategy is to determine "significant discrepancy," then set the target and goal.
Summary of Discussion on Standard Deviation:
There is some concern that the data is not completely accurate, because school districts may be under-reporting suspensions. Many districts are at 0%. In selecting a district for improvement, the DPI could consider the small size of the district. Their rates of removal will likely change greatly from year to year. DPI capacity needs to be considered when identifying the number of districts that have significant discrepancy. +1 SD results is a large number of districts identified for improvement; +2 SD is not rigorous.
Stakeholder Input:
The level at which districts will be considered to have a significant discrepancy is greater than +1.75 SD from the mean of all districts in the state.
Summary of Discussion on Target and Goal:
Data from the 2004-2005 school year, shows 30 districts, or 6.83%, are currently considered significantly discrepant, using +1.75 SD. The target for 2006 is 6.60%, or 29 districts, as significantly discrepant. The goal for 2011 is 5.50% or one district less per year over the six-year period.
Stakeholder Input:
6.6 target in 2006 and 5.5 goal in 2011
Summary of Stakeholder Input:
Indicator #19 Mediation
2006 target = 75%
2011 goal = 80%
Indicator #6 Preschool LRE
2006 target = 38%
2011 goal = 50%
Indicator #4 Suspension/Expulsion
The level at which districts will be considered to have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year is greater than +1.75 standard deviations from the mean of all districts in the state.
2006 target = 6.60%
2011 goal = 5.50%
Next scheduled stakeholder meeting: February 7-8, 2006
- Topics: Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) update; update on data collection plans for new indicators; possible update on state law proposal from small group.
Next stakeholder meetings to be scheduled:
- Summer meeting - begin to establish targets and goals for new indicators in the State Performance Plan (SPP).
- Fall meeting - prepare for February 2007 Annual Performance Report (APR) on the SPP.
For questions about this information, contact Donna A. Hart-Tervalon (608) 267-9160
Last updated on 2/22/2008 1:21:54 PM
Home
Contact Us