Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS)
Stakeholders Present over the two days:
Brian Anderson, Vaunce Ashby, Nissan Bar-Lev, Barb Behlen, Ken Cole, Sister Patrice Colletti, Cynthia Hirsch, Joanne Huston, Phil Knobel, Pete Knotek, Sheri Krause, Julie Lidbury, Pat Luebke, Carolyn Madsen, Donna Miller, Georgette Rodriguez, Pat Schaumburg, Jan Serak, Mary Skadahl, Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, Joan Wade, Pat Yahle
Special Education Technical Assistance Providers:
- Thomas J. Delaney, Education Specialist,
North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC)
- Sandy Schmitz, Technical Assistance Director, NCSEAM
- Connie Patterson, Technical Assistance, NCSEAM
DPI Staff Members Present:
- Sandy Berndt, Chair, Reading Achievement Workgroup
- Anita Castro, Chair, Graduation Gap Workgroup
- Teresa Goodier, Chair, Environment Workgroup
- Donna Hart-Tervalon, Chair of Disproportionality Workgroup
- Others: Tony Evers, Carolyn Stanford Taylor, Sheila Ellefson, Stephanie Petska, Pat Bober, Janice Duff, Barb Ebben, Jack Marker, Brent Odell, Elliot Weiman, Patti Williams, and Nancy Fuhrman
Key Points Presented and Discussed:
- To revisit stakeholder discussion rules
- To operationalize the definition of consensus
- To establish broad-based stakeholder consensus on changes to existing state laws in light of IDEA reauthorization
Welcome and Overview
Stephanie Petska restated the department's position that without broad stakeholder consensus, DPI would not seek changes in the law. The department has no designated timeline but is committed to the stakeholder process.
Revisit Stakeholder Discussion Rules
Tom Delaney, North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRS), an education specialist with the NCRRC, provided an overview of the discussion rules that were developed at the March 15-16, 2005, meeting. The stakeholders reviewed the rules and agreed that one additional rule needed to be added at this time.
Current Decision Rules (developed March 15-16)
- One person talks at a time.
- No personal attacks.
- Keep the children and families at the center/focus.
- Listen for understanding.
- Results should be focused on improvement.
- All opinions should be valued.
Added July 19, 2005
- Provide information that helps explain options
To Operationalize the Definition of Consensus
Tom Delaney, NCRRC, provided a comprehensive overview
on the topic of consensus. Following this, the stakeholders developed their own definition of consensus stated below:
Final Form:
For the CIFMS stakeholders, a consensus exists when a decision is proposed, and no one in the group says "this is unacceptable." Each stakeholder agrees to the following:
I understand all of the stakeholder's perspectives on the issue, including how it will impact students with disabilities and their families and educators;
In good faith, I believe that my organization will support this decision, including in the legislative process;
I will alert the group if I become aware that my organization is opposing a consensus decision made by the stakeholders.
A request was made for organizations to share their official positions related to the state legislation. Position statements will be sent to DPI, and DPI will share them with the stakeholders.
Next Steps:
The schedule and topics for upcoming meetings:
September 19-20, 2005
IDEA 2004/State Law
October 20-21, 2005
State Performance Plan Indicators (20)
State Performance Plan due: December 2, 2005
February 7-8, 2006
CIFMS Update
IDEA 2004/State Law
For questions about this information, contact Donna A. Hart-Tervalon (608) 267-9160
Last updated on 2/22/2008 1:21:52 PM
Home
Contact Us