Wisconsin Proficiency Score Standards Setting Final Summary Report (1997)

Standards Setting for Elementary, Middle, and High School at Grades 4, 8, and 10 (November 1997)

This Final Summary Report of the Proficiency Score Standards provides information to answer the "who, what, and how"questions about the standard setting activities that were held in Green Lake in April, 1997 for the WKCE. This report has been updated with the final, approved cut-scores and estimates of score distributions for 1996-97. The proficiency category, "partially proficient" has also been renamed as, "basic."

---

This summary report is organized to answer the following questions:

• I. What is the WSAS program?
• II. How were the proficiency cut scores set?
• III. What do the proficiency scores represent?
• IV. How is each proficiency category described? VI. Who were the participants in the April 1997 Standard Setting Panels?

---

Final results including descriptors of each of the four proficiency categories by subject and by grade and the scale score ranges associated with each category.

---

Additional copies of this Final Summary Report of the Proficiency Score Standards and other WSAS program related publications are available upon request from the Office of Educational Accountability. Please contact:

• Audrey Honaker (608) 267-1069
  Office of Educational Accountability
  Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
  P. O. Box 7841
  Madison, WI 53707-7841
  

Susan Ketchum (608) 267-0425
Jean Whitcomb (608) 267-2937
Office of Educational Accountability FAX (608) 266-8770

---

I. WHAT IS THE WSAS PROGRAM?

Section 118.30, Wisconsin Statutes requires the state superintendent to adopt or approve examinations designed to measure pupil attainment of knowledge and concepts. The Wisconsin Student Assessment System (WSAS) Knowledge & Concepts Examinations measure student knowledge in the areas of reading, language arts (including writing), mathematics, science, and social studies.

The purposes of the WSAS testing program are to:

• provide clear expectations for student learning.
• provide student achievement data related to the expectations.
• use assessment methods that promote high-quality curriculum and instruction.
• provide feedback to students to assist in educational and career planning.

The results of the WSAS testing are used by the Department of Public Instruction as an accountability measure for school improvement in order to:

1. meet its statutory requirement of identifying low performing schools as stipulated by s. 115.38(4), Wisconsin Statutes;
2. meet federal Title I, Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) requirement of using high-quality assessments to determine how well children are learning;
3. meet federal Title I (IASA) requirement to determine adequate yearly progress in Title I schools; and
4. determine the extent to which schools and districts across the state meet the state's proficiency standards.

What do the WSAS Knowledge & Concepts Examinations look like?

This new test series was based on the emerging national content standards, National Education for Education Progress (NAEP) frameworks, and state curriculum guides.

The WSAS Knowledge and Concepts Examinations have two components. One component combines multiple-choice items with short-answer items and a second component requires the student to respond to a writing test. These examinations include:

• multiple-choice and constructed-response, short-answer questions in each of the areas of reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies; and
• an on-demand essay.

Multiple-Choice and Short-Answer Examinations

Multiple-choice items allow the student to select a response from among four choices. They are machine-scored. Short-answer items allow students to demonstrate their skills in more complex levels of thinking and are scored by a professional staff experienced in providing reliable and consistent hand-scoring services. Short-answer items allow partial credit for partially answered questions. Multiple-choice and short-answer items are thematically linked and are timed separately for all tests.

The content areas included in the WSAS Knowledge and Concepts Examinations are briefly described below.

Reading/Language Arts:
Basic and higher-order skills essential for effective communication reading comprehension, language expression, vocabulary, and reference skills are integrated in one test to provide a coherent assessment experience. Directions, passages, and test questions are linked by themes that provide context and stimulate interest. The test involves the student in thinking critically and creatively, solving problems, and constructing meaning.

Mathematics:
Real-world topics engage students' interest, provide context, and encourage confidence in their ability to do mathematics. Procedures such as estimation and mental computation are interwoven into the test. Computation items are included, many of them in a realistic setting to provide students with a sense of purpose. Reading and interpreting graphs, and principles of geometry and measurement are also assessed.

Science:
Core concepts in the traditional subject areas of life science, physical science, and Earth and space science are covered, as well as key science inquiry skills. The ability to recognize, understand, and apply scientific principles and methods are measured in the context of situations students encounter in their own lives. Many questions tap higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, syntheses, and evaluation.

Social Studies:
Thematic units interrelate social studies concepts; real-works materials such as maps, political cartoons, cultures, geographic areas, and perspectives help ensure equity for all students. The test emphasizes the interrelationships of history, geography, government, and economics in its framework, question formats, and graphics.

Each subject area test includes approximately 75 percent multiple-choice and 25 percent constructed response or short answer items. Each multiple-choice item requires the students to select the best possible answer among the several choices. The constructed-response, short-answer items are linked thematically with the multiple-choice items and give the students the chance to produce their own responses to show what they know and what they can do with their knowledge. The short answer questions are scored by professional staff and partial credit is allowed.

Writing Essay Examination

Each writing prompt begins with an introduction that explains the task, followed by a reading passage which provides a context for the writing assignment. The short reading passage includes excerpts from works of fiction and nonfiction by classic and contemporary writers that were selected for their grade-level appropriateness and literary value. Each student's on-demand essay is scored holistically on a six point scale. Holistic scales provide a reliable and valid basis for evaluating writing where trained evaluators assign a numerical score to each essay based on the overall merit of the student's writing based on the scoring criteria and anchor papers.

The writing, on-demand essays, assess the areas of narrative, informative and persuasive writing which were spiraled (randomly assigned) in 1996-97 within classrooms at each grade. Future administrations of the test will include an essay from these writing genre or modes. Each writing sample is holistically scored at least twice, once each by two different evaluators. The rating scale ranges from 1 to 6, and if the two ratings are within one point of each other, they are averaged to obtain the final writing score. If the two ratings differ by more than one point, a third evaluator-a table leader or supervisor-also scores the writing and is responsible for assigning a final score.

In each content area tested, the multiple choice and constructed response items are scaled together by the contractor using item response theory (IRT). For the purpose of the standard setting and proficiency reporting, the writing essay is scaled with the multiple choice/short answer Language Arts test to form a combined content area of Language plus Writing (Enhanced Language).

---

II. HOW WERE THE PROFICIENCY CUT SCORES SET?

The standard setting procedure selected for use in Wisconsin was designed and conducted by the testing contractor, CTB/McGraw-Hill. The panelists placed "bookmarks" at the item in their item ordered booklets that represented the breaking point between the proficiency categories: minimal performance, basic, proficient, and advanced. The panelists were asked to define the proficiency score standard(s) for each subject area using the Bookmark Procedure (Lewis, Mitzel, & Green, 1996), developed by CTB research scientists. A copy of the Lewis, Mitzel, & Green paper is provided in the Technical Report

.

In April 1997, a representative group of Wisconsin educators and other citizens served on nine panels to study, debate, and recommend based on their collective expertise, proficiency score standards. The results of their deliberations are summarized in this report. The proficiency score standards will be used with subsequent administrations of the current series of WSAS examinations.

The Proficiency Score Standard Setting Panels were comprised of 185 panelists from 100 school districts; they included:

• third, fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth grade teachers,
• learning disabilities, bilingual, and Title I teachers,
• administrators,
• curriculum experts,
• school board members,
• guidance counselors,
• assessment coordinators, and
• other citizens from across the state.

Participants were drawn from recommendations by professional organizations, self-nominations, and other referral sources. Each nominee was asked to provide some indication of their area of qualification and experience. From the nomination pool, the department selected the most qualified panelists who also represented various areas of Wisconsin, brought a variety of experience, and were as well balanced as possible for gender, race/ethnicity, and other factors. Section V lists the districts and participant names of the panelists as well as official observers.

The panelists were asked to attend for the entire two or three day standard setting session as required. Panelists' expenses were reimbursed by the contractor, however, the panelists' time was volunteered as a professional service. It should be acknowledged that many districts, other employers, and other organizations provided support to enable the panelists' release time.

Panelists received background information in the mail prior to the panel meeting. The fundamental tasks that participants performed under the Bookmark Procedure were to:

1. study the test items in order of "difficulty" (IRT scale score location);
2. determine the increase in the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to correctly respond to items as the items increase in difficulty;
3. make judgments as to which items represent content that students in each proficiency category (Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Minimal Performance) should know and be able to do and place a "bookmark" at the item in their item ordered booklet that represented the dividing point between each of the proficiency categories; and
4. write descriptions of expected student performance at each level after the cut points had been established via the standard setting process.

The overall schedule followed by the standard setting panels was:

Under the Bookmark Procedure, participants placed their proficiency scores in a manner that directly reflects expected student performance. The Bookmark Procedure helps the panelist understand in an integrated way what the test measures, it makes the judgmental task concrete, and it best uses the professional experience of the participants.

Evaluations showed that panelists were overwhelmingly positive about the process used and the resulting standards that were set. The strength of the process stems from three sources:

First and fundamental was the use of a specially mapped test booklet containing two years' test questions and ordered from the easiest to the most difficult items providing empirical data for the judgment process.

Second, the make up of the panels and the progression of deliberations in each round of rating beginning with individual-level judgments, to table-level discussion, to room-level discussion, to the provision of statewide context with "impact data," informed the panelists of others' views and experiences while maintaining the ratings at the individual level. The inclusion of adjacent grade-level teachers and the combined middle school/high school panel, allowed perspectives in the discussions that were across the various view points.

Third, the table leaders, room leaders, and other staff facilitated discussions which, on the whole allowed all participants to be heard by the panel prior to placing their bookmarks.

The goal of each round was to provide individual judgments and yet there was a high degree of consistency of ratings as evidenced by nearly identical mean and median bookmarks (documented in the Wisconsin Proficiency Score Standards Technical Report).

---

III. WHAT DO THE PROFICIENCY SCORES REPRESENT?

Proficiency cut-scores are stated in terms of TerraNova scale scores, the basic underlying score on this assessment. Scale scores are based on the students' correct responses and also take into account the item difficulties, discrimination indices, and chance of guessing on selected response questions. The TerraNova scales for each content area range across the levels for which the test series was designed, from kindergarten-sixth month to the end of twelfth grade.

The proficiency cut-scores are based on the actual knowledge and skills as represented by test items that panelists expected of the students by October of the particular grade. The content descriptors for each content area provide interpretations for those proficiency categories.

Beginning in January 1998, student scores on the WSAS Knowledge & Concepts Examinations will be reported in terms of four proficiency categories in addition to normative and other scores. The proficiency categories are described in general terms as follows (see Table 2).

Table 3 estimates the impact of the proficiency score standards based on the total statewide population reported for the fall of 1996 test. The estimates were revised on October 20th, 1997 to reflect the adjustments made to the cut scores for elementary social studies, middle level reading, and high school math.

The differences in proficiency cut-scores between the content areas as well as the percentages of students falling into each category are the result of several factors. Among the variables are: the content match of this particular test series with what is taught in local schools, the difficulty of the test content, and the make up of the panel. The standard setting process was designed to minimize all of the extraneous factors. The results of the standard setting process provide expectations of what proficient students should be able to demonstrate on this examination.

The standard setting process was designed to minimize all of the extraneous factors that affect the panel judgments. The results of the standard setting process provide expectations of what proficient students should know and be able to demonstrate on this examination by the fall of the grade tested. This expectation is a content-based standard.

---

IV. HOW IS EACH PROFICIENCY CATEGORY DESCRIBED?

The Bookmark procedure is designed to simplify the judgmental task required of participants and facilitate the writing of valid proficiency category descriptions. The descriptions were obtained by examining the specific test questions that participants of the standard setting workshop determined all students in a given performance level should know and be able to do. The curriculum experts and other panelists were able to determine the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to correctly answer a multiple choice item or obtain a given score point on constructed response items.

For example, to write the description of the student performance in the Proficient category, the committee members were asked to synthesize the content of items that fell within that category in the ordered item booklet. These items represent the content that most, but not all, students performing in the Proficient category know and are able to do. The same procedure was used for the other proficiency categories.

Then, to streamline the descriptors, the committee members were asked to express the descriptors in the following fashion:

• Most students with scores in the Basic category have the knowledge, skills, and abilities noted in the Basic description. Some of the students that perform in the Basic category also have some of the knowledge, skills, and abilities contained in the Proficient description, but not enough of them to earn Proficient classification. By working on the skills ascribed to the Proficient level student, the student with scores in the Basic category can obtain the skills necessary to place in the Proficient performance level.
• Most students with scores in the Proficient category have the knowledge, skills, and abilities noted in the Proficient description. Some of the students in the Proficient category also have some of the knowledge, skills, and abilities contained in the Advanced student description, but not enough of them to earn Advanced classification. By working on the skills ascribed to the Advanced category,, the Proficient level student can obtain the skills necessary to place in the Advanced performance level.
• Most students with scores in the Advanced category have the knowledge, skills, and abilities noted in the Advanced description. Some but not all of the students in the Advanced category may also have some of the knowledge, skills, and abilities.

After the standard setting, the proficiency descriptors drafted by the committee members go through a series of revisions. First, some continuity between grades is established by the large group leaders with input from Wisconsin DPI. Following this revision, the descriptors are considered the long version; a shorter version is then developed for the purposes of the reports. The long version follows in order to provide meaning to the proficiency categories. Scale scores for the proficiency categories appear in parentheses.

The descriptors that follow provide meaning to proficiency score categories for each content area and grade level tested by the Knowledge & Concepts Examinations.

---

Links to proficiency score descriptors:

• Reading (Grades 4, 8 & 10)
• Enhanced Language (Grades 4, 8 & 10)
• Mathematics (Grades 4, 8 & 10)
• Science (Grades 4, 8 & 10)
• Social Studies (Grades 4, 8 & 10)

Table 4: Proficiency Categories in Terms of TerraNova Scale Scores

---

Wisconsin Alternate Assessment
for
Students with Disabilities

---

WAA-S/Dis. Pre-requisite Skill levels, based upon DPI-approved protocols and rubrics are assigned to students with disabilities who are not able to demonstrate some of the knowledge and skills on the WKCE test in the subject area with allowable accommodations. These skill levels provide common benchmarks for describing where a student is currently functioning with regard to developmental expectations for all students.

PS Advanced - Student demonstrates a consistent understanding of the concepts and skills contained in the content area, but he or she is functioning at a level that is significantly below grade and/or developmental expectations. He or she requires minimal support to demonstrate his or her learning

PS Proficient - Student demonstrates an emerging ability to understand and perform within the content area. Student's understanding of concepts and performance of most skills in the items is inconsistent and he or she requires moderate support to demonstrate his or her learning.

PS Basic- Student attends to instruction in the content area and participates in activities with extensive support. Student responds or performs some skills in a limited number of settings.

PS Minimal - Student exhibits very few of the prerequisite skills and knowledge in the content area. He or she is unable to perform skills or demonstrate knowledge without full physical prompting in a highly structured setting.

V. HOW DO WISCONSIN STUDENTS COMPARE WITH OTHERS?

On the fall 1996 Knowledge & Concepts Examinations, Wisconsin students at all three grades scored well above the nationwide comparison group on the multiple choice and short answer sections of the test. The following graph indicates how well Wisconsin students compare with the nationwide comparison sample (national norm group) on these tests.

Using percentiles and comparing with a referent group is the way we've primarily looked at performance in the past. Statewide, Wisconsin students' scores generally rank higher than national averages on standardized achievement tests. But, what does that mean in terms of the knowledge and concepts that they know and can demonstrate? Is their performance on important skills good enough?

Proficiency score reports are designed to answer these questions about some important content as measured by these achievement tests. In the future, the primary method of reporting and use of WSAS Knowledge & Concepts scores will be in terms of the proficiency score standards. The normative information that was provided in the past will continue to be provided.

Table 5 provides a context for the percentages of Wisconsin students performing in each proficiency category found in Table 3. On Table 5, the performance by the national norm group is described using the Wisconsin Proficiency Category cut scores. The national comparison group does not display a "not tested" category since the inclusion practices varied somewhat across the sampled schools. Therefore, the percentages of students are based on the total students in the national sample.

In general, fewer students in the national norm group scored in the Proficient and Advanced categories than did Wisconsin students..

---

VI. WHO WERE THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE APRIL 1997 STANDARD SETTING PANELS?

Final: Nine panels, 185 panelists, 19-22 per panel (plus 4 canceled, 1 excused, 2 illnesses)

---

8th/10th Social Studies			8th/10th Science
Harland L. Stone	Arcadia Schools		Loren R. Ebert	Adams-Friendship Jr High
Ellen A. Nelson	Ashland High School		Mr. Lynn Hoernke	Adams/Friendship-Adams
Cheryl A. Hafeman	Beecher-Dunbar-Pembine-HS		Lois Corey	Black River Falls Administrative Office
Gene Van Galder	Beloit Memorial High School		Linda Luger	Burlington Middle Schl
Bill Godfrey	Cedarburg H.S.		Stephen Johnson	Butternut Schools
Bob Tomczyk	Clintonville High School		John A. Nevins	Crandon High Schools
Lee C. Button	Fox Valley Technical College		Rodney C. Johnson	Eau Claire North High School
Cynthia Jacobson	Holmen-Viking Elementary School		Barbara Meyocks	Kenosha Unified-Tremper HS
Hal Balsiger	Madison Metro		Jane Dietz	Marion School District-Jr./Sr. HS
Dave Wessel	Manitowoc-Lincoln H S		Carolyn S. Stoner	Milton CESA #2
Michelle Trevino	Milwaukee-Grand Ave School		Laura M.Hellman	Milw-J. Robinson Accelerated Middle
Mark Kaminski	Milwaukee Education Center Middle		Susan Kowalski	Milwaukee-Cosmic Center
Deborah Jansch	Neenah Jt. Schools-Shattuck Middle		Kathleen Damrow	Milwaukee-Custer HS
Dave Polashek	Oconto Falls District Office		Tim Sharpe	Monona Grove H S
Sandra J. Owens	Oregon Schools-Middle Schl		Paula Barsamian	Pewaukee High Schl
Jeff Ryan	Prescott H S		Jon Christian	Racine-Mitchell Middle
Robert Hayes	Racine Case H S		Marise Hussey	Waukesha Area Technical College
Pete Edwards	Reedsburg-Webb High School		Carolyn Reese	Waunakee Middle School
Pauline Doucette	Rhinelander School Board		Steve Kipfer	Wisconsin Rapids-East Junior High
Derrick Krey	Valders Middle Schl
Christopher Dich	Waukesha-Horning Middle School
Peter L. Gust	Wisconsin Dells Schools-HS

8/10th Mathematics			10th Reading, Language Arts+ Writing
Arnold T. Lee	Beloit School Board		Tom Holtgreive	Adams-Friendship High School
Margaret Kaduce	Chippewa Falls Middle School		Sylvia Doyle	Cuba City High School
Barbara A. Ries	Chippewa Valley Technical College		Bonnie Frechette	De Pere-West De Pere HS
Jim Coles	Green Bay CESA #7		Steve Kittleson	Grafton High School
Gerald Sonnleitner	Green Lake Schools-HS		Kathy Schneider	Kettle Moraine H S
Rosemary Chown	Holmen Middle Schl		Priscilla K. Parsons	Madison Metro Memorial High Schl
Ingrid Johnson-Evwold	Maple -Northwestern Middle Schl		Hugh Foster	Manitowoc Schls-Lincoln HS
Michael W. Hulett	Menomonie Area Schools-HS		Victoria Frazier	Milw-Professional Devlpmnt Cntr
Peter Raphael	Menomonie H S		Joan Pond	Park Falls Schools -HS
Kathleen Schactner	Milw-James Madison University HS		Dorothy Berg	Pittsville School District-HS
Michael J. WIll	Milwaukee-Cass Street School		Mary Krubsack	Prescott Senior H S
Elizabeth Freeman	Milwaukee-Cosmic Center		Meredyth L. Albright	Rhinelander Daily News, Mng.Editor
Jeff Kloko	Milwaukee-Cosmic Center		Maria Gjovig	Saint Croix Central Jr/Sr HS
Ms. Ouida Williams	Milwaukee-Jackie Robinson		Edythe Lanswick	Solon Springs Schools-HS
Sara Nowacki	Muskego-Norway-Bay Lane Middle		Marlene Ott	South Milwaukee School District-HS
Rich Mohnsen	New Richmond High School		David Natwick	Sturgeon Bay High School
Mr. Terry Wozny	Port Washington H S		Nancy Berklund	Tomah Schools-District Office
Nancy Crow	Rhinelander High School		Kathleen Brown	Waukesha-Catholic Memorial HS
Debra Ottman	River Falls High School		Sandra Zinos	Waukesha-West H S
Larry Svaton	Stevens Point Schools-Ben Franklin		Michael Fraundorf,	West Allis-West Milw-Central HS
Jim Marty	Waukesha North HS
Stephanie Luther	Wisconsin Heights High Schl

8th Reading, Language Arts+ Writing			4th Reading, Language Arts+ Writing
Dawn Mattson	Antigo Middle School		Sandra Orie	Bonduel Elementary School
Kathryn Duerr	Barron-Riverview Middle Schl		Mary Atkinson	Clinton Schools-Clinton Elem
Marie Leonard	Eau Claire South Middle School		Alice Weickelt	Eau Claire-Longfellow School
Susan A. Schumann	La Crosse-Hogan Admin Cntr		Rob Modjeski	Eau Claire Locust Lane Elementary
Claudia Whitty	Lomira-HS, Theresa Elem		Maribeth Monday	Fond du Lac-Evans Elem
Thuy Pham-Remmele	Madison Public Schools		Sharon M. Rychter	Green Bay Schools-Jefferson Elem
Autrio E. Reed	Milwaukee-Fritsche Middle		Sandra Fuhrman	Holmen Schools
Beth A. Puestow	Milwaukee-Sarah A. Scott		Dinah M. Faust	Mauston Schls-West Side Elem
Darlene A. Junker	Milwaukee-Story Elementary		Graciela de la Cruz	Milwaukee-Allen-Field School
Paulette Timm	Mt. Horeb		Sherita Brazil	Milwaukee-Byron Kilbourn
Elizabeth Smith	Pardeeville-Pardeeville Elem		Paulette Copeland	Milwaukee-Samuel Clemens
Barbara Karst	Port Washington-T. Jefferson		Emanuel Daniels	Milwaukee Schls-Phillip Wheatley
Jennifer Sue Muffick	Racine-McKinley Middle School		Lori Wagner	Mukwonago-Prairie View Elem
Sandra Riekoff	Racine Unified Schools-Park HS		Pam Healy	New Richmond-West Elem
Beth Ann Palm	Spring Valley-Middle/High Schl		John Tyson	Oshkosh Schools-Merrill Elem
Barbara Massoglia	Stevens Point-Ben Franklin Jr HS		Cynthia C. Weiss	Racine
Barbara Patch	Sun Prairie Middle Schl		Margaret Allen	Rhinelander School District
MaryJane Best Louther	UW Green Bay Cntr Educ/Workforce		Mary Bebie	River Falls Schls-Westside Elem
Nancy L. Thompson	Waterloo School Board		George Winter	Spring Valley-Elementary/Middle
Janice Cronin	West Allis-West Milwaukee Admin		Bonnie Wolden	Superior-Lake Superior Elem
Mary Hackney	Wisconsin Rapids Schools		Penny Antell	Tomorrow River-Amherst Elem

4th Social Studies			4th Science
Jeffrey Rusch	Appleton-Edna Ferber Elem		Ann Smejkal	Algoma Elementary
Linda Soos	Boscobel Elementary		Dan Tripp	Barron Schools-Woodland Elem
Cathie Plaehn	Boyceville District-Tiffany Creek Elem		Peter Richardson	Beloit Schools-Converse Elem
Betty Bechel	Durand-Caddie Woodlawn Elem		Don Tincher	Berlin Schls-Clay Lamberton
Julie M. Hannon	Freedom Schools-Freedom Elem		Laurie Hittman	Eau Claire Central Office
Abbe Krissman	Greenfield Schls-Elm Dale Elem		Barbara Pladziewicz	Elk Mound Schls-Moundview Elem
Heidi Vogel	Janesville Schls-Wilson Elem		Debra Keller	La Crosse-Jefferson Elem
Mike McKinnon	Janesville Schools		Carol Parsons	Lafarge Elem
Kathie Tyser	LaCrosse-Hogan Administrative Cntr		Tom Bobrofsky	Loyal Elementary
Ann C. Walser	Madison-Shorewood Elem		Mary Jan Rosenak	Madison School Board
Marsha T. Denny	Menomonee Falls-Valley View		Janet Kane	Middleton School Board
Theresa Schoessaw	Mequon-Thiensville-Wilson Elem		Christina Parsons	Milwaukee-H. D. Thoreau
S. Jane O'Neill	Monroe-Abraham Lincoln Elem		Bonnie Edward	Milwaukee-Starms Elem
Mary M. Frank	Osseo-Fairchild Elem		Jan Weiler	Milwaukee- Golda Meir School
Jerene Mortenson	River Falls Westside Elem		Joan M. Jennings	Milwaukee-Cosmic Center
Rose Main-Helm	Stevens Point-Jackson Elem		Linda Caraher	Monona Grove
Berland Meyer	Wausau Public-Central Office		Eileen Nemec	Mt Horeb-Intermediate Center
Bonnie Vander Meulen	Whitewater-Lincoln Elem		Pamela Freiberg	Oshkosh-Sunset Elem
Ken Wood	Wisconsin Rapids-Howe Elem		John Surendonk	Racine-Gifford IMC
			Teri Mueller	Southern Door Elementary
			Debbie Petzel	Unity (Balsam Lake) Elementary

4th Mathematics
LeAnn Jungenberg	Adams-Friendship Elementary
Florence Kunstman	Boscobel Elementary School
Nancy Dignan	East TroySchool Board
Carolyn Keeler	Fond du Lac School District Ofc
Linda Somers Sanderson	Greenfield-Elm Dale
Ms. Chris Gering	Greenfield Schls-Elm Dale Elem
Jan Marson	La Crosse-Jefferson Elem
Ann Bents	Manitowoc-Jefferson Elem
Debra Bilzing	Middleton
Connie Pauletich	Milwaukee -HD Thoreau
Diane Price	Milwaukee Public Schools-MUSI
Jeanne Czech	Oconto Falls-Washington
Bart Appleton	Prescott School District-Malone Elem
Scott Miatech	Racine-Giese Elem
Nancy Hart	Racine-Red Apple Elementary
Diana Kasbaum	Sun Prairie-Eastside Elem
Tom Bredesen	Three Lakes Schools
Rebecca Vail	Twin Lakes Jt #4
Sue Hamm	Wisconsin Rapids-Howe Elem
Patricia Nimtz	Wisconsin Rapids-Washington Elem

The following people were official observers, attending one or more days of panel proceedings:

Office of Educational Accountability

Will Ashmore
Maggie Burke
Frank Evans
Rajah Farah
John Fortier
Darwin Kaufman
Susan Ketchum
Jean Whitcomb

Division for Learning Support: Instructional Services

MaryAnn Evans-Patrick
Shelly Fisher
Jacque Karbon
Jim Moser
Pauli Nikolay
Karen Prickette

Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy

Jodean Grunow

Wisconsin Education Association Council

Russell Allen

---

For questions about this information, contact oeamail@dpi.state.wi.us

Last updated on 9/19/2007 8:39:00 AM