State Superintendent Advisory Council – Deaf and Hard of Hearing
April 7, 2008
GEF 3 Room 041
125 S Webster
Council Members: Robin Barnes, David Collins, Brian Anderson, Anne Blaylock, Krista Sherin,
Alice Sykora, Jamie Amacci, Amy Otis Wilborn
DPI Representatives: Alex Slappey, Carol Schweitzer, Marcy Dicker
Guests: Stacie Heckendorf, Heidi Hollenberger, Holly Kloiber, Bonnie Eldred, Laurie Nelson, Dan
Houlihan, Sherry Kimball
Interepeters: Mary Lynn Rose & Jill Krey
Note Taker: Rita Gietzel
Review Agenda – David made the motion to accept the agenda, Brian seconded. All were in favor.
Minutes from December 7, 2007 meeting were reviewed – Motion to accept the minutes were made
by Anne, seconded by Krista. All were in favor.
Vacant position for interpreter preparation program representative: Two programs have been
contacted with no response.
Carol – Shared with the council the initial outcome of the 1st of 4 meetings: Effective Itinerate
Services Focus Groups.
Marcy –Outreach is applying for a five year federal grant for deaf/blind children. The grant is for
$175,000 per year for five years. Outreach needs letters of support and is hoping the council would
consider writing a letter.
Responding to a question Marcy indicated that the grant would provide technical assistance, collect
data for a federal deaf/blind registry (required for grant), intervener training, deaf/blind professional
development training, family weekend, and collaboration with WCBVI.
National Agenda Overview – Marcy & Carol
Presented goal areas for review that were thought to be relative to the state and the work this council
does. The Outreach team was invited to participate in this meeting of the council to support the review
of the National Agenda and steps in building a Wisconsin Agenda for Students who are Deaf and Hard
Everyone had a set of the 8 goals of the National Agenda. A few moments were given for people to
read through them and jot down notes or questions. As a group, we talked through the NA as a whole
and then each goal. The following is a summary of the initial discussion in reviewing these goals.
Goal 1 – Early intervention
Marcy shared where some of the outreach programs fit in with this goal and what they are doing to
Amy feels that goal 1 has a lot of activity going on.
Jamie wondered about students coming from other countries, how are they referred so they can be
identified if they are not B-3?
The Council looked at adding to the definition of “newly identified” rather than as coming in from
other countries, but identified as late diagnosed. WETRACK does include the older newly identified.
Goal 2 – Communication, language and literacy goal.
What are your thoughts?
How are dhh students doing on the WKCE? Carol has the data that shows dhh students up through the
10th grade are at 50% or above proficient for reading.
Sherry - Who determines fully literate and productive adults?
Alice went to a workshop and one thing that impressed her is that children “learn to read” until they
“reading to learn”. Deaf and hard of hearing children often don’t reach the “reading to learn” level.
This goal was rewritten to be Communication and Language. Literacy: Reading and Writing will be
the new Goal 5.
Goal 3 –Social and Emotional Skill Development
What are your thoughts?
David thinks the state mental coalition should be involved.
It is felt that this should include both in and out of school situations.
Alice asked if the sentence relating to the interacting with peers is understood by the community to
mean with other deaf and hard of hearing students and not just grouping all disabilities.
Goal 4 – Assessment and Accountability in education
WI has guidelines for standards and statewide assessments.
Dan, Accountability varies because it really depends on the school district.
Dave, These goals should be written in a way that people who have no background in this area can
understand these goals.
Brian – He agrees with Heidi – We need to raise awareness of D/HH and then raise the issues as to
why these statements are unique to deaf and hard of hearing students. We also need to explain that the
accommodation for the assessment does not mean repeating the same thing over & over.
Goal 5 – “Best Practices” Literacy: Reading and Writing
Best practices depends on what that is defined as a best practice and for who? The district, the teacher,
and others would have different definitions.
This goal was rewritten to be Literacy: Reading and Writing
Goal 6 – Technology
What does this mean to you?
David – Surgical procedures such as cochlear implants or audiological equipment and who pays for it.
Stacie – This might even mean identifying the different types of technology.
Alice – This could aid in the other goal of “fully functional” if given early enough.
Jamie – The Video Phone is a good technology – and aids in students with peer interaction and
language. There is a new program called Life Link to aid students with questions and they can call
thru VP to someone that can aid in doing homework.
Goal 7 – Collaborative Partnerships with universities, schools and communities
It was recommend leaving this one off at this time
Goal 8 – Need for Wide-Ranging Research
It was recommend leaving this one off at this time
Stephanie Petska joined meeting.
Dr. Petska came to discuss the letter sent by Council to Ms Burmaster about the sharing of EIPA
results. DPI wants to take as proactive a stance as possible.
Educational Interpreter Mentorship Program:
For the 2008-09 school year, Title II dollars will be used to develop the Educational Interpreter
Mentorship Program for those who score on the EIPA is between 2.7 and 3.2. Interpreters will be
encouraged to take the test early in the 5 year life of the license so they can be mentored and increase
their ability. But it will not be required that they take a mentor. This will be a pilot project right now.
The idea of notification has some confidentiality issues. Plus if they test early and do not pass but take
the opportunity for mentoring so they can improve and pass, it might not result in a positive situation
to report the failure right away.
Due to these and several other reasons DPI has determined that they will not share results with special
Brian asked how districts know what level of support their staff educational interpreter will need?
Information from the Educational Interpreter Job Performance Rubric (on the DPI website) can be used
as a guide for the level of support available already that does not include assessment of the
interpreter’s interpreting competency. This tool was written for principals, directors or others who
must complete a job performance review that does not include assessment of sign language.
Jamie – She asked if the continuing education requirements for educational interpreters could be
required to be professional/language related. Right now they can take any college courses.
Stephanie Petska left the meeting.
The afternoon activity completed the review of the National Agenda goals and the State
Performance Plan Indictors. The activity was for those at the meeting (Council members and the
Outreach team) to break into small groups to discuss one of the first 3 goals from the National Agenda
making suggestions for revision and need for attention in Wisconsin. This activity begins the process
of building a Wisconsin Agenda along with a strategic plan for the Advisory Council.
Work group exercises:
Using the first 3 goals from National Agenda, the members worked to align each goal with the
indicators. Each group completed a common format addressing:
a) What is being done?
b) What is needed for improvement?
c) Add Possible Goals for the Advisory Council.
Each group reported out on their discussion and notes.
Marcy & Carol collected the notes and will type them out. At the next meeting we will finish the other
goals. Marcy reminded council that a quorum will be needed.
Agenda for next meeting:
Continuation of the next goals
Reporting from the programs, Outreach, DPI and WSD.
Effective Itinerate teacher Focus Groups
Vacant council positions
Visual & auditory environments
Date for next meeting: May 22.
We will be meeting at DPI in room 041 from 9:30 am – 3:00 pm
Motion to adjourn was made by Jamie and seconded by Brian.