Continuous Improvement & Focused Monitoring
|
CIFMS Ad Hoc Task Force Meeting
December 11, 2007
Target Setting for Indicator 14; Proposed Changes to SPP Indicators; SLD Criteria Update; SPP Targets and Goals Update
Stephanie Petska welcomed the stakeholders and thanked them for attending especially given the snowstorm the state was experiencing. Stephanie also thanked those participating via teleconference. She then introduced Ann Bailey, of the North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC); Marge Resan, new DPI Autism Consultant; and Paul Sherman, new DPI Pupil Nondiscrimination Consultant.
Stakeholders Present:
Vaunce Ashby, Nissan Bar Lev, Don Rosin, Mary Skadal, Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, Bonnie Vander Mullen
Stakeholders Participating Via Conference Call:
Barb Behlen, Phil Knobel, Jan Serak, Pat Yahle
Facilitator:
Ann Bailey, State Technical Assistance Specialist, North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC)
- Ann Bailey facilitated the meeting and began with a review of the agenda and discussion rules.
Indicator 14 – Post High School Outcomes; Mary Kampa, Wisconsin Post High School Outcomes Survey (WPHSOS) Project Coordinator, CESA 11
Mary Kampa described the history of WPHSOS and how districts participate. She demonstrated the online website and shared a final report (PowerPoint Presentation).
Stakeholder Comments and Questions
- Are all districts included in the survey every year? The state is not required to include every LEA every year. However, every LEA must be included at least once during the State Performance Plan (SPP) six-year cycle. Study results are and must be representative of the state and LEAs. Districts may conduct their own studies using the WPHSOS website and survey. Milwaukee Public Schools is required to participate annually because they have an annual daily membership over 50,000.
- How was the definition of competitive employment determined? Every state determines their definition. Wisconsin’s definition is consistent with the national model and was established two years ago with stakeholder input.
- Is sheltered workshop considered on-the-job training? No.
- How is competitive employment determined? If the student is competitively employed at the time of the survey or any time in the last year, they are rated as competitively employed. WPHSOS collects the data on both and can disaggregate the data.
- Are we examining student outcomes four years after exiting high school? Indicator 14 requires the state to determine the percent of youth who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school. Our previous statewide study included years 1, 3, and 5 years after exiting high school.
- Districts should consider the fact that competitive employment during high school is a good indicator of post high school competitive employment when making staffing decisions, especially those impacting school staff who provide job-training to students and help them find employment during high school.
Ann Bailey commented that states were not previously required to collect and report data on post high school outcomes. Wisconsin’s work in this area is a model for other states. Mary Kampa has mentored other states and serves on a national advisory committee.
Indicator 14 Target Setting
- Data from the 2005-06 WPHSOS was presented.
- Data from previous post high school surveys were presented so that stakeholders could examine trend data.
- The stakeholders reviewed and discussed three target setting options (see PowerPoint).
- Maintenance
- Equal step
- Plateau step
- The "maintenance of goals" option was eliminated because a state must set targets that show improvement over time. Static goals are not permitted by OSEP.
- States are allowed to adjust their targets over the years, with good reason.
- Nationally, states are establishing targets with very small incremental increases.
- National employment outcomes only increased 1% in ten years.
- The number of students it takes to impact data is great; an increase of 1% would be approximately 120 students.
Stakeholder comments
- Opportunities for competitive employment are limited, especially in some areas of the state.
- We need to consider LEA and state resources when setting targets.
- WI should communicate through its SPP targets that improvement is expected to occur every year.
- The final goal should be ambitious.
- Improving outcomes is a collective responsibility throughout the state that must be a continual focus if outcomes are to improve.
- Technical assistance must be provided statewide, not just to those districts in the cycle year for data collection.
Decision
Stakeholders unanimously voted to recommend .5% increases with 67.5% as the final goal.
| Year | Target |
|---|
| 2005-06 | 65% |
| 2006-07 | 65.5% |
| 2007-08 | 66% |
| 2008-09 | 66.5% |
| 2009-10 | 67% |
| 2010-11 | 67.5% |
Proposed Changes to the SPP Indicators; Ann Bailey, NCRRC
- Proposed Changes to SPP/APR, PowerPoint
- Ann presented changes OSEP is proposing to make to the State Performance Plan indicators.
- Ann recommended accessing information and technical assistance related to the SPP indicators on the Regional Resource Center’s website at http://www.rrfcnetwork.org.
Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Criteria; Kathy Laffin, DPI Consultant
- SLD Criteria Summary
- Federal regulations were reviewed.
- Wisconsin’s proposed SLD criteria was shared.
- Hoping for implementation July 1, 2008, following legislative review.
- LEAs are to use the existing SLD criteria until notified by DPI; no change will occur in the 2007-08 SY.
SPP Targets and Goals Update; Nancy Fuhrman, DPI Data Coordinator, and Dani Scott, DPI Data Consultant
Indicators 1, 2, 3, and 4, Eva Kubinski and Sandra Berndt, DPI Consultants
- Focused Monitoring (FM) impacts Indicators 1-4.
- Have revised FM district selection process based on stakeholder input.
- Districts receiving focused monitoring in 2007-08: Beloit, MPS, Philips, Tomah, Watertown, and Wausau.
- Refined Focused Performance Review (data analysis) process to more closely align with graduation and reading probes used during FM. This process may be used independently by districts.
- Capacity and access probes used during FM Reading onsites could be revised to focus on math, as well.
- Kenosha, Manitowoc and Rhinelander, previously monitored districts – have experienced tremendous growth. However, Kenosha may be identified as a District Identified for Improvement (DIFI) by Title I next year. Previously Kenosha had 30+ reading programs within the district; now they have coordinated their reading programs and have 7 in the district. Also include special education and regular education teachers together in professional development activities.
- The DPI Special Education Team is working with Title I to coordinate monitoring and improvement planning activities.
- We have identified positive practices working in the FM districts that can be shared with other districts to impact the state.
Indicator 6 Improvement Activities; Mary Peters, DPI Consultant
- Collaborating Partners Powerpoint
- DPI and the Department of Health and Family Services – Birth to Three (DHFS) collaborate on improvement activities
- Ruth Chvojicek, CESA 5, is coordinator for child outcomes indicator and is working with Program Support Teachers.
- DPI is working with FACETS to develop a family module for Indicator 7 to help parents understand this child outcome indicator.
Indicator 12, Mary Peters, DPI Consultant
- A cross-department workgroup (DPI and DHFS) is analyzing data and developing collaborative improvement activities and communication.
- Working on interagency agreements with DHFS and tribal nations
- DPI will make revisions to bulletins pending final Part C regulations.
- GSEG providing funding for development of shared data collection system. Hope to have in place by July 2008.
- Main training component is “Ready-Set-Go.”
Indicator 13; Steve Gilles, DPI Consultant
- Indicator 13 PowerPoint Presentation
- The Wisconsin Statewide Transition Initiative (WSTI) is providing professional development through a series of networking meetings to all districts required to report.
- Information is also available to all districts on the WSTI website, including professional development modules.
- Identifying statewide trends and technical assistance needs through the data collection component of the Procedural Compliance Self-Assessment.
- The baseline score for Indicator 13 is reflective of IEPs written prior to the new requirements. Each year a new cohort is included in the data collection.
- Districts that participate in WSTI score higher on Indicator 13.
Indicator 15, Elliot Weiman, DPI Consultant
- Noncompliance identified in FM districts and IDEA complaints (2005-06).
- All noncompliance was corrected within one year (2006-07).
- All districts now participate in a Procedural Compliance Self-Assessment to identify noncompliance. Approximately 88 districts participate each year. DPI verifies correction of identified noncompliance.
Indicator 16, Jack Marker, DPI Consultant
- 79 complaints filed in 2006-07; increase in number but improvement in DPI decision timelines.
- Increase in DPI complaint investigation staff.
- Complaint Workgroup reviews data related to timelines on a regular basis, including the calendar of due dates.
- Increasing staff to seven (one addition) in 2007-08.
Indicator 20, Dani Scott, DPI Consultant
- OSEP developed rubric with 144 data points.
- OSEP is developing an instruction sheet to accompany.
- DPI will likely have additional data points to consider when making LEA determinations.
Stakeholder recommendations:
- Consider what DPI is doing for those districts that don’t participate in DPI initiatives.
- Consider working with institutes of higher education to impact outcomes.
- Provide examples of post high school transition goals.
- Identify best practices for each indicator.
- Work with NCRRC to add WI strategies to their improvement strategies website.
Future agenda items:
- Consider adjusting SPP targets in May.
- Focus on statewide improvement strategies, especially to target 10th grade WKCE scores.
- What impact do reading scores have on post high school outcomes?
Next scheduled stakeholder meeting: May 20, Room 041 at DPI.
For questions about this information, contact Anita J. Castro (608) 266-1781
Last updated on 3/25/2008 7:35:01 AM
|
Home
Contact Us