CIFMS Ad Hoc Task Force Meeting
May 25, 2004

Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS)

Task Force Members Present:

• Vaunce Ashby (Special Education Teacher/Madison Metropolitan School District)
• Nissan Bar-Lev (Director of Special Education/Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services)
• Barb Behlen (Regional Service Network/CESAs)
• Sister Patrice Colletti (Disability Rights Advocacy)
• Cynthia Hirsch (School Parent Liaison/Quality Education Coalition/Learning Disabilities Association)
• Joann Huston (Wisconsin Special Education Stakeholders/WEAC)
• Pete Knotek (Special Education Provider/Wisconsin Education Association Council)
• Julie Lidbury (Department of Corrections)
• Patricia Schaumburg, Special Education Director, Adams-Friendship School District
• Jan Serak (Wisconsin Family Assistance Center for Education, Training and Support, Inc./Autism Society of Wisconsin)

DPI Staff Members Present:

• Carolyn Stanford Taylor, Assistant State Superintendent
  Division for Learning Support: Equip and Advocacy
• Stephanie Petska, State Director of Special Education
• Donna Hart-Tervalon, Assistant State Director of Special Education (Chair, Disproportionality Workgroup)
• Sandy Berndt (Chair, Accountability Workgroup)
• Anita Castro (Chair, Exiting Workgroup and Self-Assessment of Procedural Requirements Workgroup)
• Teresa Goodier (Chair, Environment Workgroup)
• Sheila Ellefson (Legal Counsel)
• Debbie Gaffney Dilley (Program Assistant)

CIFMS Proposed Focused Monitoring Plan 2004-2005 School Year

An overview of the new Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) plan was presented by Donna Hart-Tervalon, Assistant State Director of Special Education. CIFMS is still a work in progress and each member was encouraged to ask questions and respond to each topic. An overview of each of the six pilot monitoring visits including the priority indicators was reviewed. A binder of materials was distributed to the members.

Overview: Continuous Improvement - Clinton School District Pilot Monitoring (Self-Assessment of Procedural Requirements) - Anita Castro

A training session was provided to staff at Clinton on how to use the record review checklist for self-assessment of procedural requirements in the district. The district provided positive feedback on the training and appreciated the opportunity to be involved. District staff gained a better understanding of the procedural requirements and their purpose. The self-assessment of procedural requirements training was presented at each of the six pilot monitoring visits.

Discussion:

• "Paperwork" for the teachers. Will CIFMS require more time and effort in paperwork for staff in the districts? DPI and the pilot school district participants indicated that once staff understand the process, it will assist them in performing their jobs more efficiently and effectively.
• What is best practices versus minimal compliance? How will this be determined? What will DPI do as a state agency to hold districts in compliance? What sanctions will be brought forth?
• Concerns expressed by the group included the need for more onsite accountability rather than having it become a "paper process."

Overview: Continuous Improvement - Altoona School District Pilot Monitoring Accountability of Procedural Requirements) - Sandy Berndt

Performance and participation in statewide testing of the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination with the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment will be the focus of the accountability priority area with outcomes for children with disabilities. This indicator is driven by IDEA and NCLB. It is the team's goal to assist the district with procedural requirements and programming needs.

Discussion:

• How many parents opt out of testing? DPI indicated that less than 1 percent of parents opt out.
• Will using the WKCE as a red flag highlight a lot of districts to monitor? DPI responded that the selection of districts process has yet to be determined.
• Feedback from the group highlighted a need for the team to be sensitive to the methodology of extracting data from parents, teachers, administrators.
• The term accountability is a "catch all" phrase. Re-evaluate this term.

Overview: Continuous Improvement - Appleton School District Pilot Monitoring (Disproportionality Procedural Requirements) - Donna Hart-Tervalon

The disproportionality checklist was reviewed and noted that it was modified after the Appleton visit. Appleton School District was very receptive to the topic of disproportionality. A number of disproportionality issues had already been identified by the district prior to the pilot visit.

Discussion:

• A disproportionate number of children are identified for special education across many groups related to poverty, ethnicity and race. Training on reducing over-identification of diverse groups of students needs to include general educators. DPI needs to distribute information and training to districts to change their practices.
• Data will vary from rural to urban school districts on diversity. What tools will the DPI use to determine disproportionality? DPI explained that the workgroup will continue to work on modifying and updating this process.
• Discussion of alternative schools. How will the DPI monitor these schools? What criteria will be used to verify compliance?

Overview: Continuous Improvement - Auburndale/Green Bay School District Pilot Monitoring (Environment/ Procedural Requirements) - Teresa Goodier

An overview explained the definition of educational environment as well as the training tools utilized in the pilot district. Processes included how to determine the location of services and how the decision-making process is determined for students. The application activity for environment codes was presented to the group.

Discussion:

• The team needs to focus on the accuracy of the data first. A process for determining which districts will receive onsite visits is being developed.
• Environment codes measure the amount of time special education students are educated with their nondisabled peers. The current environment coding process for the December 1 Child Count was explained.
• Environment code training will occur in Fall 2004 followed by web-based access for additional training opportunities.

Overview: Continuous Improvement - Prescott School District Pilot Monitoring (Exiting/Procedural Requirements) - Anita Castro

• There were discussions on the high school graduation rate in the state, as well as parental participation in the record review. Should parents be trained together with the teachers? A lengthy discussion followed.

WCASS Panel Debriefing

Donna Hart-Tervalon distributed and reviewed the WCASS Panel Presentation Feedback sheet. The next step will be to meet with the pilot directors to review final materials.

District Selection-OSEP Model

Sandy Bernt gave an overview of her experience with meetings at the federal level. A state needs a balance between outcomes and procedural safeguards in focused monitoring.

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will be deciding on what states they will monitor. Currently, OSEP's plan is for 10 percent of states to be monitored. However, there is no exact determination of the selection process. Alan Coulter from the National Monitoring Center will be in Wisconsin on August 18-19, 2004 to work with DPI on the selection of districts process within Wisconsin.

General Discussion:

• Is there a need to match rural and urban school districts for CIFMS?
• What do we think are the most important indicators?
• How to select for CIFMS: half of the large, 1/3 of the medium and 1/3 of the small?
• How will you measure progress over time?
• Is there a need to compare districts? There should be no need for comparison especially if we have trigger points that we will use. The word is "comparable" not "comparison" of districts.
• Will the Special Education Plan (SEP) become the improvement plan for CIFMS?
• The group supported random selection and division by region. All districts need to be under the "radar" for monitoring.
• If a district does not improve or is not willing to improve, will sanctions be levied? Will it be monetary sanctions? Will DPI model OSEP?
• Let's focus on what is positive in the districts and to highlight model districts.

CIFMS Plan for 2004-05

Donna Hart-Tervalon distributed the draft plan and reviewed the seven bulleted items.

For questions about this information, contact Donna A. Hart-Tervalon (608) 267-9160

Last updated on 2/22/2008 1:21:55 PM