By Brian Fraley, Publisher, Dairyland Sentinel

When the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) released its technical report on the 2024 Forward Exam standard-setting process, the disclosure came with a catch.

The list of workshop participants appeared more than 300 pages into the document, embedded on page 322. The list was sorted alphabetically by first name and formatted in a way that made it difficult to sort which school districts were represented or how often. Disclosure? Sure. Transparency? Not so much.

The report confirms that dozens of educators from across Wisconsin participated alongside DPI staff in the multi-day standard-setting workshop, an event held at a Wisconsin Dells resort that included access to a water park and carried a total price tag of $368,885. That total is for 88 workshop attendees, plus DPI staff and workshop facilitators.

To date, DPI has not released itemized receipts for the conference despite multiple public records requests. While the agency has acknowledged the total cost, it has not detailed lodging rates, meals, facility rentals, or ancillary expenses. We also do not know if participants also charge their districts for milage reimbursement for their travel or any other expenses.

The original request

On January 21, 2025, we sent the following request to the Department. They acknowledged receipt of the request a few weeks later and provided a report of the workshop, however even after another release of records this week, we are awaiting answers to some of our questions. The bulk of our original request, submitted to Superintendent Jill Underly and DPI more than a year ago:

Under the Wisconsin Open Records Law, §§19.31 to 19.39 I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that relate to the panel of “nearly 100 experts from across the state” who recommended the updated achievement benchmarks for the forward exam, as per your statement of early today as reported by Corrinne Hess of Wisconsin Public Radio.

Specifically:

1) Who were these experts? How are they chosen? Please provide documentation, including invitations and relevant discussions regarding the geographic and ideological diversity. Please also provide any communication with anyone in your department regarding the vetting of these experts including correspondence with any groups or individuals consulted regarding the composition of this group.

2) When and where did they meet? Please provide agendas, minutes and any Zoom or other recording of the meetings.

3) Were any of the 100 experts asked to sign a non disclosure agreement or similar document that would shield the public from information regarding the discussions? Please provide any relevant emails and other documents given to the advisory group, including any Non Disclosure contracts or discussions regarding any such agreements.

4) Please provide a complete timeline of this consultation process and include an itemized listing of any state expenditures including staff time and equipment purchases, meeting space rental, food, travel, lodging or other accommodations.

The Price of Silence

This lack of transparency has already carried a significant cost for the agency. As reported yesterday by the Dairyland Sentinel, the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance moved to “hit pause” on a $1 million funding request from the DPI specifically because of the revelations regarding this resort retreat. Committee Co-Chair Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) cited the Dairyland Sentinel’s reporting as the primary reason for withholding the funds, noting that the “secrecy” and “high cost” of the event raised serious questions about the proper use of taxpayer dollars.

Uncovering the details of what actually happened during those four days at the Chula Vista Resort is made even more difficult by the strict Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) attendees were required to sign (see link at the end of this article). According to the Wisconsin Forward Exam Confidentiality Agreement, participants were strictly prohibited from discussing “test items, graphics, tasks,” or even “measurement/research/report data” outside of the review process. They were specifically warned that any disclosure could result in “civil legal liability for copyright violations” and “district-level disciplinary action”. This threat of legal and professional retaliation creates a formidable barrier for any participant who might wish to speak out about the deliberations that led to the lowering of state proficiency standards.

So the public is inconveniently left with DPI as the only source for answers, unless the school districts themselves press their employees to reveal details of what happened in the Dells in the Summer of 2024.

“After the workshop, please feel free to share the process with others, but please keep private the recommendations, the contents of your conversations, and the test items.”

DPI/DRC SECURITY BRIEFING, JUNE 2024

Accountability is hampered by a surprising lack of official documentation. Despite the nearly $400,000 price tag, the DPI has asserted that no recordings or transcripts were made of the workshop sessions, and it has failed to provide any formal meeting minutes. This raises a fundamental question of government accountability: If there are no notes, no recordings, and no transcripts, how was the final 324-page technical report actually drafted? Without these primary records, the public is forced to trust a curated summary produced after the fact, with no way to verify the “collaborative” feedback the DPI claims drove the process.

While the DPI’s technical report was positioned as a final answer, it served more as a distraction. The participant list, alphabetized by first name of attendee in the DPI report, shows representation from large urban districts, small rural schools, and charter networks. As of this week have also obtained the emails that invited these participants, yet we still do not know the criteria for their selection. Why were these individuals chosen and not others?

Below is the full list of workshop participants as disclosed by DPI, reorganized by school or district (listed first) for clarity.

Standard Setting Workshop Participants by School or District

Abbotsford Elementary

  • Dawn Carmichael

Adams Friendship School District

  • Leah Hover Preiss

Amery School District

  • Julie Severson

Appleton Area School District

  • Julie Bowe
  • Samantha Fischer

Berlin School District

  • Michele Collins

Brown Deer School District

  • Carlos Alba

Cashton School District

  • Clara Krause

Cudahy School District

  • Amy Paladino

Delavan Darien School District

  • Amber Williams

Edgar School District

  • Emily Morzewski

Elmwood School District

  • Jenny Sauve

Eau Claire Area School District

  • Debra Erickson

Florence County School District

  • Kate Millan

Fond du Lac School District

  • Marvina Thao
  • NaQuisha Mann

Fort Atkinson School District

  • Denise Engstrom

Freedom Area Schools

  • Dana Osowski

Green Bay Area Public School District

  • Katherine Genisot
  • Luceth Escandell
  • Teresa Tenorio

Greendale School District

  • Kristin Martens
  • Michael Brock
  • Yesenia Saavedra

Hayward Community School District

  • Sarah Letke

HOPE Christian Schools and Open Sky

  • Ashley Kerrens
  • Kajuanna McAfee
  • Lakeshia Montgomery Freeman

Janesville School District

  • Joshlyn Schlichter

Juda School District

  • Kimberli Grimm

Kenosha Unified School District

  • Ann H Grugel

Kettle Moraine School District

  • Angela Kraft

Kewaskum School District

  • Jamie Miller

Kimberly Area School District

  • Amy Betters Midtvedt

Madison Metropolitan School District

  • Delia Watkins

Menasha Joint School District

  • Samantha Roberts

Menominee Indian School District

  • Mary Juckem

Menomonie School District

  • Emily Minor

Merton Community School District

  • Lindsay Bialobrzeski

Milton School District

  • Abbie Nash
  • Caitlin Nelson

Milwaukee Public Schools and affiliated charters

  • Amanda Carson
  • Cynthia Cuellar Rodriguez
  • Helen Makovec
  • Elizabeth Watts
  • Morgan Woods

Montello High School

  • Jennifer Hacht

Nekoosa School District

  • Tori Joosten

New London School District

  • Gloria Peterson
  • Lynn A Schaal

Onalaska School District

  • Lorie Peterson

Oregon School District

  • Celia Paczwa

Osceola School District

  • Lorraine Anderson

Phelps School District

  • Emily Kuckkahn

Port Edwards School District

  • Beth Willcome

Portage Community School District

  • Matt Dietzenbach

Racine Unified School District and charters

  • Amy Bloom
  • Mallory Umar
  • Michelle Burch
  • Nicole Radcliffe
  • Valerie Morey
  • Katherine Demers

Rice Lake Area School District

  • Sadie Gunnink

Sauk Prairie School District

  • Joel Liedtke
  • Scott Bakken

Shell Lake School District

  • Sharon Ricci

South Milwaukee School District

  • April Sterbin

Sturgeon Bay School District

  • Amy Richard
  • Jane Lewis

Two Rivers Public School District

  • Cayolyn Johnsen

United Community Center

  • Sarah Schindler

Waunakee Community School District

  • Lori Armstrong

Waukesha School District

  • Bryn Perry
  • Hillary Kuehnl
  • Joanna Binsfeld
  • Deyse Van Kempen

Wautoma Area School District

  • Jenna Simacek

West Allis West Milwaukee School District

  • Jonathan Touhy

West Bend School District

  • Monica Green

West Salem School District

  • Theresa Martinson

Wheatland Joint School District

  • Margaret P Rovik

Whitnall School District

  • Shawn Anne Pierner

Wittenberg Birnamwood School District

  • Nicole Steigerwald

Wisconsin Rapids Public Schools

  • Abigail Lynn Kreisa

The list raises unresolved questions. How were participants selected? What individuals or districts declined or were excluded, and why? How much did each attendee cost taxpayers? Why do the itemized receipts remain unavailable?

DPI has said the workshop was necessary to establish new academic benchmarks. Did these participants have a real impact or were they mere grassroots fig leaves that gave a bureaucratic policy change the cover of collaboration?

Under the new state standards, Proficiency rates jumped 12% under the new state benchmarks, causing a majority of students to “meet expectations.” Critics argue the bar has been lowered to make state averages look more favorable. With nearly $400,000 in taxpayer funds spent at a water park resort to produce these results, Wisconsin taxpayers deserve to know the truth of who really made the decisions and why they were made. 

Parents, school boards, and taxpayers may now want to ask a simple question, and take it from there: Did someone from our school district participate in this endeavor?

THE NDA

Previously on Dairyland Sentinel