CIFMS Ad Hoc Task Force Meeting Summary, October 10, 2006

Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS)

Stakeholders Present:

Brian Anderson, Nissan Bar Lev, Barb Behlen, Sister Patrice Colletti, Cynthia Hirsch, JoAnne Huston, Phil Knobel, Carolyn Madsen, Jan Serak, Mary Skadahl, Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, Bonnie Vander Meulen, Joan Wade, and Patricia Yahle

Council on Special Education Members:

(Brian Anderson), Cindy Cain, Susan Endress, Gerald Fults, Jill Gonzalez, Robert Kroll, Maggie Lewis, Monica Lopez, Don Nielson, and June Paul, (Bonnie Vander Meulen), and (Patricia Yahle)

Special Education Technical Assistance Providers:

Dr. Sandy Schmitz, Technical Assistance Director, National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM); Thomas Delaney, Education Specialist, North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC)

Welcome

Anita Castro, Assistant Director of Special Education, welcomed the State Superintendent's Council on Special Education and the CIFMS Stakeholders and thanked them for participating in the video-conference call with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), in preparation for the OSEP data verification visit to Wisconsin November 7-9, 2006. The Council and Stakeholders introduced themselves.

OSEP Video-Conference Call, 10:00-11:00 a.m.

OSEP Participants: Lynne Fairfax, Larry Ringer, and Mary Crayton

OSEP commended DPI for being very inclusive and inviting many different stakeholders to participate in the video-conference call. The Council and Stakeholders (hereafter the Council and CIFMS Stakeholders will be referenced as stakeholders) were invited to contact OSEP by email or telephone if there were comments they were not able to make during the call. OSEP clarified that they will not be able to meet with stakeholders during their onsite data verification visit in November.

Stakeholder Comments Regarding Wisconsin's Data System:

Several stakeholders commented that the state is very careful that data are accurate prior to releasing the data to the public. However, this results in a delay in data availability and impacts the use of data for improvement planning at the state and local levels. For instance, the most current graduation data available is two years old. It is difficult to measure LEA progress when data is not available. The state has worked hard to develop a data system that is accurate and timely. However, there are varying interpretations of data definitions which impact accurate reporting of data by LEAs. DPI is addressing this need by developing a data dictionary.

DPI has established Data Ambassadors, educational professionals and leaders from throughout the state, to evaluate data collection efforts by the department. In the last two years, DPI has undertaken a major process of assigning individual student identification numbers to allow the state to more accurately collect data and report more quickly (Individual Student Enrollment System – ISES). This new data collection system allows the state to ask for data once from an LEA. The state is also involved in a longitudinal data study, partnering with three other states.

DPI is collaborating with DHFS to merge data collection systems in order to more accurately collect data on children transitioning from Part C (birth to 3 programs) to Part B (early childhood programs).

Data are used to identify districts for focused monitoring; performance data are used to measure progress.

Several stakeholders commented that LEAs are becoming more aware of the importance and use of data. The state has created a Special Education data retreat process to assist districts (including teachers) to analyze disaggregated data and use data to improve outcomes for all students.

Since 1998, Wisconsin has been a leader in collecting and reporting data on students with disabilities compared to non-disabled students. However, one has to question the amount of resources spent on collecting data if student outcomes are not improving.

Stakeholder Comments Regarding Wisconsin's Assessment System:

DPI is to be commended for creating an extensive series of bulletins on assessment and disseminating information statewide. These bulletins have been used to effectively share information with parents and families.

Many stakeholders commented positively on the DPI’s role in providing technical assistance on statewide and alternate assessments through webcasts, bulletins, handbooks, and individual consultation with district staff. DPI’s partnership with the CESAs to provide assessment training is appreciated.

Assessment information is very important to DVR counselors and is used to make postsecondary decisions.

Through the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) training provided by DPI, parents have become knowledgeable about accommodations and reasons why a child might have an alternate assessment. Teachers are well trained and apply accommodations in the regular education classroom, as well.

Stakeholder Comments Regarding Wisconsin’s General Supervision System:

Several stakeholders commented that Wisconsin’s mediation system is considered a national model and has been recognized by OSEP. Parents and schools have partnered to administer the mediation system for the last ten years. The emphasis is on early resolution. The system works very quickly (within 20 days) to resolve issues. The mediation process is free and voluntary; that is why it is effective. Because of the effective mediation system, complaints and due process hearings have been reduced in Wisconsin. However, a stakeholder commented that enforcement of mediation decisions is problematic.

Several stakeholders commented that DPI has made progress in improving the timeliness of their complaint decisions. DPI follows CAPS and ensure they are completed in a timely manner. The complaint process is not a process used by parents very often; parents need to be assisted to file complaints when necessary. The complaint process does a moderately good job of identifying noncompliance when the paperwork reveals it. However, follow-up interviews with parents are recommended. In the past complaint decisions were delayed because the LEA did not provide requested materials to the department. DPI has revised its complaint procedures so that if materials are not received from the LEA, DPI will assume noncompliance is substantiated. DPI encourages correction and provides technical assistance, but does not ensure correction as demonstrated by complaints on the same issues surfacing again and again in a district. DPI staff shares complaint decisions with the State Superintendent’s Council on Special Education. IDEA complaints decisions are available to the public on the DPI website. Over the last several years, DPI has sought more stakeholders input (e.g. involved stakeholders in the state law process).

Parent liaisons are trained to assist with the focused monitoring process in LEAs. They are able to explain the monitoring process to parents in the district, as a result. Teachers are also involved in the focused monitoring onsite process. Training materials are provided. The procedural compliance self-assessment monitoring document is a new tool, but will be very useful and expand DPI’s general supervision capabilities. The focused monitoring system has been developing over the past several years with stakeholders involvement in the process. For two years districts volunteered to be monitored. This is first year that a small number of districts have been identified based on data for focused monitoring (FM). FM causes a greater reliance on the complaint system. Parents need to be more aware of the complaint process; it is a very simple process in Wisconsin. DPI is focusing its resources on districts most in need; but DPI must be sure the rest of the state is in compliance.

DPI has worked with the Milwaukee Public Schools to develop a more effective supervision system. The process includes a data collection event that allows the district to measure progress and develop a plan. It is a cyclical process that allows the district to own the accountability process, but includes validation by DPI.

DPI and LEAs are faced with economic conditions that are not going to be relieved in the near future. The work that is being done is under economic constraints.

DPI is to be commended for developing informational materials for parents, such as "Special Education in Plain Language." The State Improvement Grant (SIG) has brought together a vast amount of collaborative partnerships among communities, parents, and schools to improve outcomes. The SIG has increased awareness of the State Performance Plan (SPP) targets by aligning the SIG goals with the SPP targets.

OSEP thanked the stakeholders and invited them to contact Lynne Fairfax if they had additional comments. Lynne's contact information is: lynne.fairfax@ed.gov, 202-245-7337, or at:

U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
550 12th St. SW
Room 4037
Washington D.C. 20202-2600

Stephanie thanked the participants for their candor. The fact that many of the stakeholders shared their opinions was a testament to the stakeholder process.

Indicator 8, Parent Involvement – Pat Bober, DPI Consultant; Tom Delaney, NCRRC

One year ago NCSEAM released their 100 question national parent involvement survey. A validation study was conducted to establish reliability and validity. The survey was tested on 30,000 parents over a 5 year period. A panel of experts was convened to review the results.
Through the stakeholder process, WI chose to use a shortened version of the NCSEAM survey to collect data for Indicator 8. WI could not match the reliability and validity of the NCSEAM parent involvement survey.
DPI worked with NCRRC to develop a sampling plan. NCRRC also created an online survey for Wisconsin to collect the data. The survey is available in English Spanish and Hmong.
CDs were mailed to districts with the names of a random sample of parents selected by DPI.
FACETS and WSPEI coordinators are assisting with the process in LEAs. The follow-up process is now being conducted by LEAs.
There is preliminary data available to set the target for this indicator. The target may be revisited on an annual basis. Baseline data is currently 68.5% parents report schools facilitated parent involvement.
PowerPoint on target setting options. A national stakeholder group determined the standard used to identify critical items on the survey to measure schools’ facilitation of parent involvement. Items above the standard do not impact results but may be strategies for improvement planning.

Stakeholder Discussion:

It is important that all parents have access to the survey. There are a variety of modes that parents may use to complete the survey. There is capability to sort responses by response type.
The survey includes questions about strategies districts may utilize with parents that are not required by state or federal statutes. This may mislead parents to believe all of the strategies included in the survey are required of districts. The stakeholders may want to reevaluate the use of the national survey instrument in subsequent years.
There was general agreement that Wisconsin is well poised to increase the percentage on this indicator and it is important to do so. WSPEI and FACETS support schools in efforts to increase parent involvement to improve results for children with disabilities.
Stakeholders discussed various goals ranging from 80% to 95% by the 2010-11 school year. Some expressed the importance of setting a high goal to send the message that this is important. Others were concerned if the goal was set too high that OSEP might have to impose sanctions if the state did not meet the goal.
Stakeholders unanimously agreed to split the difference between Options B and C from the Target Setting Options chart presented by Tom Delaney and set the goal for 2010-2011 at 87.5% percent of parents report that schools facilitated parent involvement.

Indicator 18, Resolution Sessions – Jack Marker, DPI School Administration Consultant; Tom Delaney, NCRRC

Indicator 18 measures the percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.
Wisconsin had 31 hearing requests between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. Four were dismissed by a hearing officer, 8 were resolved through mediation, and 7 were resolved through resolution session agreement. The baseline for this indicator is, therefore, 37%.