Page 1 of 3
Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process
ACTION MINUTES
Members Present:Karon Joyer,Duane Woeste, Carol Erickson, Sue Bartling, Susie Cronick, Linda Guidera, Mary Rock, Karen Mueller, Kelly Young, Heidi Shaback, Parent Rep. (JR), Troy Gonzales, Lynn Doerrer, Katie Hoffman, and Steve AndersonMembers Absent:Julie Koehler, Nancy Holland, Paul Brashier, Sharon Burrell, Shawn Bromeland, Karen Wollak, Stephanee Goeken, Jackie Smith,
/ Meeting Date: / October 2, 2008
Recorder: / Duane Woeste
Date/Time/Place of Next Meeting:
January 15, 2009
12:30-3:30PM
DistrictEd.Center – Rm. TBD
April 23, 2009
12:30-3:30PM
DistrictEd.Center – Rm. TBD
AGENDA ITEM
/ACTION DECISION
1. / CIMP Membership / 1. / Five team members will have their membership expire on June 30, 2009: the parent representative (JR), Joanne Karch, Steve Anderson, and Sue Bartling and Carol Erickson.The committee will seek out replacements for the outgoing members. If a replacement can not be found, that member will have the opportunity to serve for another four years.Additional membership will be requested from ECSE, parents, and general education teaching staff.
2. / Meeting Dates / 2. / The following meeting dates have been selected. These dates could be used for CIMP work committees to complete annual action plan activities.
January 15, 2009
12:30-3:30PM
DistrictEd.Center – Rm. TBD
April 23, 2009
12:30-3:30PM
DistrictEd.Center – Rm. TBD
3. / Review the 2008-2009 Action Plan / 3. / Duane Woeste reviewed the 2008-2009 action plan.
4. / Non Public Work Group / 4. / A non public work group was formed to review the current service delivery model for non publics and propose recommendations and changes if any to the CIMP and special education leadership team. The following members volunteered to participate on the Non Public Work Group;
Duane Woeste, Linda Guidera, Mary Rock, Heidi Shaback, Steve Anderson.
5. / Middle School Work Group for Special Education / 5. / A middle school work group was formed to review the current service delivery model for middle school special education and propose recommendations and changes if any to the CIMP and special education leadership team. The following members volunteered to participate on the Middle School Work Group;
Sue Bartling, Susie Cronick, Parent Rep. (JR), Troy Gonzales, Katie Hoffman, Joanne Karch, Julie Koehler,
6.
7. / Hit Rate Data
Disproportionate Representation Work Group
2007-08 Committee Members
Linda Kallevang
Lynn Doerrer
Jennie Kula
Ayannah Farrell
Julie Koehler / 6.
7. / Steve Anderson reported hit rate data for 2007-2008 for initial special education evaluations.
Lynn Doerrer provided an update from the disproportionate work group. The committee met approximately 4 times over the course of the school year. The following action took place:
Members attended a meeting with guest speaker Elizabeth Watkins, MDE who met with the team to relay our district’s data regarding our students of color being disproportionally being assessed/receiving special education services.
School psychologists & building teams reviewed and at some sites piloted the “Socio cultural checklist” from MDE’s “Reducing Bias in Special Education Assessment for American Indian & African American Students” manual. Feedback was brought back to the team from the school psychologist lead to process and identify potential changes in wording or supplemental materials that may be needed for the checklist to be user-friendly and effective.
The team reviewed the “District checklist for policies, procedures and practices related to disproportionate representation” submitted by ISD 622 in the spring of 2007-07. Ratings were discussed from the spring 07 and re-rated the same areas collectively from spring 08 to see if growth had been made.
The team needs to generate a user-friendly/effective/efficient socio cultural checklist for building staff to use to eliminate unnecessary special education assessment. The team will need to identify:
- who is expected to complete the form it
- when –at what point in the process it should be completed (TAT, PNC)
- whether the tool should be used for all students
- how to communicate the new checklist to staff,
- how should staff expected to implement it be trained
- when should training occur, how long
- who should train