A key principle of an effective continuous improvement and focused monitoring system is input and feedback from a diverse group of stakeholders. Original selection of task force members represented the categories of stakeholder characteristics outlined by the CIFMS manual from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Task force members and their affiliations are as follows:
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)
- Kelly Kapitz (Marathon County Children with Disabilities Education Board/WCASS/National Association of School Psychologists)
- Pete Knotek (Special Education Provider/Wisconsin Education Association Council)
- Julie Lidbury (Department of Corrections)
- Donna Miller (Department of Health and Family Services)
- Jan Serak (Wisconsin Family Assistance Center for Education, Training and Support, Inc./Autism Society of Wisconsin)
Task Force Members Absent:
- Patricia Schaumburg, Special Education Director, Adams-Friendship Schools
DPI Staff Members Present:
- Donna Hart-Tervalon (Assistant State Director of Special Education and Chair, Disproportionality Workgroup)
- Sandy Berndt (Chair, Accountability Workgroup)
- Anita Castro (Chair, Exiting Workgroup)
- Teresa Goodier (Chair, Environment Workgroup)
- Sheila Ellefson (Legal Counsel)
- Debbie Gaffney Dilley (Program Assistant)
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS)
powerpoint slides 1-27
An overview of the new Continous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) was presented by Donna Hart-Tervalon, Assistant Director of Special Education. Emphasis was given to the fact that the CIFMS is a work in progress. Overviews were presented of each main area. Participants were asked to respond to questions relating to each topic:
Overview: Continuous Improvement
(Special Education Plan and Self-Assessment of Procedural Requirements)
- powerpoint Slide 27
1. Considering the pros and cons of an annual LEA self-assessment of special education procedural requirements what is your recommendation on the frequency of the self-assessment?
2. How should districts determine the self-assessment record sample, including how may records should be reviewed and which records (from which schools)?
3. How should the LEA self-assessment relate to a previous LEA corrective action plan (CAP)? (LEAs may be completing a CAP under the previous monitoring system that addresses specific procedural compliance errors.)
4. How should the results of the LEA self-assessment be reported to DPI?
5. How can DPI best meet LEA self-assessment training needs?
Overview: Focused Monitoring
- powerpoint slides 33-36
1. Should the regional or district data reviews incorporate all of the priority areas or concentrate on the priority area in which the district has not met criteria?
2. We are considering surveys/interviews/focused groups/case studies when we go onsite, what are the issues surrounding the use of these techniques?
3. When we are onsite we will be reviewing IEPs, how best can we determine if IEPs are being implemented?
4. At the end of the onsite we will be working with the district to develop an improvement plan, what should be included in this plan?
5. As a district implements an improvement plan, technical assistance (TA) will be provided, what types of TA would be most beneficial?
Overview: Selecting Districts for Focused Monitoring
- powerpoint slides 42-47
1. What are the pros and cons of using the four OSEP categories?
2. If a district has met criteria in one of the four priority areas, should the district be selected for focused monitoring, or should a district have met criteria across multiple priority areas in order to be selected for focused monitoring?
3. What district demographics should be considered in determining selection for focused monitoring?
4. What recommendations or suggestions can you offer as possible rewards or incentives for districts that are performing well in all priority areas?
5. What recommendations or suggestions can you offer as possible sanctions for districts that are not performing well in all priority areas?
General Discussion/Recommendations:
Task Force members provided valuable feedback into the ongoing development of the new CIFMS. They emphasized the importance of continued involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, i.e., directors of special education, parents, principals, district administrators, special education teachers, regular education teachers, etc. The CIFMS will be piloted during the second semester of 2003-04. The following districts have agreed to serve as pilot sites:
- Altoona
- Appleton
- Auburndale
- Clinton
- Green Bay
- Prescott
The task force members will meet again on May 25, 2004.
For questions about this information, contact Donna A. Hart-Tervalon (608) 267-9160
Last updated on 2/22/2008 1:21:55 PM
Home
About Us
