CIFMS Ad Hoc Task Force Meeting
November 9-10, 2004

Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS)

Task Force Members Present:

Brian Anderson, Vaunce Ashby, Nissan Bar-Lev, Barb Behlen, Sister Patrice Colletti, Cynthia Hirsch, Joanne Huston, Pete Knotek, Sheri Krause, Julie Lidbury, Pat Luebke, Carolyn Madsen, Donna Miller, Georgette Rodriguez, Pat Schaumberg, Jan Serak, Mary Skadahl, Jeff Spitzer-Reznick, Pat Yahle

DPI Staff Members Present:

Sandy Berndt, Deb Bilzing, Pat Bober, Anita Castro, Sandy Corbett, Janice Duff, Barb Ebben, Sheila Ellefson, Sue Enoch, Tony Evers, Pam Foegen, Nancy Fuhrman, Steve Gilles, Teresa Goodier, Donna Hart-Tervalon, Jeremiah Holiday, Courtney Jenkins, Jack Marker, Brent Odell, Judy O'Kane, Stephanie Petska, Carol Schweitzer, Sheryl Squier, Carolyn Stanford Taylor, Suzan Van Beaver, Elliot Weiman, Patti Williams

November 9, 2004, 1:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Dr. W. Alan Coulter, Director of the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM), and Dr. Sandy Schmitz, Director of Technical Assistance for NCSEAM, which is funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), presented an overview on the concept of focused monitoring in the continuous improvement of special education. The link to the power point presentation is at the end of this summary.

Key Points Presented and Discussed

• Six working premises: what gets counted gets done
• The big six of general supervision (and continuous improvement)
• 755 procedural requirements: too many trivialize special education and make compliance impossible
• 100% compliance does not necessarily ensure improved educational results which is the emphasis of IDEA
• Wisconsin graduation and dropout data
• Traditional monitoring of special education has not resulted in improved student results
• Definition of focused monitoring
• "New" compliance formula: compliance = educational processes (FAPE) and educational benefit (results)
• Recurring themes: using data, stakeholder priorities, improvement, accountability
• Role of Wisconsin stakeholders
• State/local monitoring process
• Focused monitoring pilot process for spring 2005 outlined
• Next steps
• Guiding questions for stakeholders
• NCSEAM goals:
     o Build consensus
     o Develop capacity
     o Assist OSEP

General Discussion Topics

• How compliance is to be ensured by a state
• What constitutes general supervision
• OSEP's model of general supervision
• Wisconsin model of general supervision - should mirror OSEP's
• Data collection and analysis - importance of NCLB
• Dispute resolution system - supports assurance that compliance is occurring
• Evaluating effectiveness of your monitoring system
• Balancing qualitative and quantitative data including "personal stories"
• Data validity, timeliness, accuracy LEA profiles - meaningful use of data
• Stakeholders must be educated and informed decision makers

November 10, 2004, 8:30a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Dr. Sandy Schmitz and Dr. W. Alan Coulter continued their meeting with the Wisconsin Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Task Force. The link to the power point presentation used throughout the second day of the meeting is at the end of this summary.

Key Points Presented and Discussed

Outcomes and agenda for the day

• Role of stakeholders: four tasks to be accomplished today
• Examine DPI's capacity for onsite monitoring
  1. Identify focused monitoring priority areas
  2. Determine how priority areas are to be measured
  3. Identify cohort groups
  4. Identify focused monitoring priority areas: review data and what is already happening
• Examined other states examples of enrollment groups
• Reviewed DPI capacity for onsite monitoring
• Sandra Berndt presented Wisconsin achievement data for grades 4, 8, 10
• Anita Castro presented Wisconsin exiting data (graduation and dropout)
• Teresa Goodier presented information and data on environment code reporting
• Donna Hart-Tervalon presented information on how Wisconsin is addressing disproportionality. (Disproportionate representation is defined as "the extent to which membership in a given group affects the probability of being placed in a specific special education disability category." (Oswald, etal.1999).
• Small Group Work Task: #2 and #3: How many focused monitoring priority areas for 2005-06 school year and what should they be? (selected from performance, environments or exiting). How should they be measured?
• Decisions: two priority areas are Performance: 8th Grade Reading Gap, and Exiting: Graduation Gap
• Small Group Work Task: identify cohort/enrollment groups: two options presented, a third option was proposed.
• Decisions: option 3 with eight enrollment groups was selected.

General Discussion Topics

• Help determine goals/priorities
• Help determine district cohort groups
• Our task/focus is on improving results
• Constructing system so everyone feels same urgency to improve results
• Three priority areas discussed with consensus and voting resulting in two being selected
• Progress measured for both priority areas is achievement gap
• Must determine what approach is best for ensuring improved results in Milwaukee
• May 3 and 4, 2005, are confirmed dates
• Discussed options for including parents on monitoring teams

Next Steps

• DPI will pilot focused monitoring onsite process in volunteer districts next semester
• Once districts have been identified, task force will be informed
• Summary of pilot visits will be shared at next task force meeting
• Next CIFMS task force meeting is May 3-4, 2005

General Overview

- WICore on FM in Part B

• Day 1 - Brief Overview of Focused Monitoring in Part B
  
  
• Day 2 - Stakeholders WI 11-10-04

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

Last updated on 2/22/2008 1:21:54 PM