The current rules qualifying a child with an SLD are inflexible for schools. The implementation and measures required by the current rule do not match the measurement tools available to school districts. The current SLD criteria identifies eight areas for identification and requires scientific, research-based interventions. There are no scientific, research-based interventions in all eight areas in the rule. Current rules further require an individualized education plan to determine if a student is making insufficient progress in one or more areas following intensive interventions. The current eligibility criteria, however, are difficult for schools to implement with fidelity across various educational settings. As such, the proposed rule will update criteria identifying children that have specific learning disabilities by reducing the rules’ prescriptive nature and creating flexibility across educational settings. The rule change is designed to recognize current knowledge and best practices and to properly address student needs. Without a rule change, the department will continue to implement ch. PI 11 as written. Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report:
N/A
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector:
N/A
Effect on small business:
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats. Agency contact person: (including email and telephone)
Carl Bryan
Administrative Rules Coordinator
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(608) 266-3275
Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission:
Comments should be submitted to Carl Bryan, Department of Public Instruction, 125 S. Webster Street, P.O. Box 7841, Madison, WI 53707-7841 or at adminrules@dpi.wi.gov. The Department will publish a hearing notice in the Administrative Register which will provide information on the deadline for the submission of comments. RULE TEXT
SECTION 1. PI 11.02 (1) is amended to read:
PI 11.02 (1) “Adequate fidelity" means the evidence-based intervention has been applied in a manner highly consistent with its design,for the duration and was provided to the pupil at least 80 percentthe level of the recommended number of weeks, sessions, and minutes per sessionintensity that is in accordance with the design of the identified evidence base that supports effective results.
SECTION 2. PI 11.02 (1) (g) is created to read:
PI 11.02 (1g) “Area of potential specific learning disability” means one of the following:
(a) Basic reading skill.
(b) Listening comprehension.
(c) Mathematics calculation.
(d) Mathematics problem solving.
(e) Oral expression.
(f) Reading comprehension.
(g) Reading fluency skills.
(h) Written expression.
SECTION 3. PI 11.02 (4e) is repealed and recreated to read:
PI 11.02 (4e) “Evidence-based intervention,” has the meaning given in 20 USC 7801 (21) (A) (i). SECTION 4. PI 11.02 (6g) is created to read:
(6g) “Intensive, evidence-based intervention” means an evidence-based intervention that is also an intensive intervention.
SECTION 5. PI 11.02 (6m) is repealed and recreated to read:
(6m) “Intensive intervention” means the systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance of individual or small groups of children, focusing on small numbers of discrete skills, matched to student need, with substantial numbers of instructional minutes in addition to those provided to all children.
SECTION 6. PI 11.02 (6t) and (9) are repealed.
SECTION 7. PI 11.02 (10) is amended to read:
PI 11.02 (10) “Progress monitoring" means a scientifically-based practice to assess pupil response to interventionsan evidence-based practice used to assess the effectiveness of intensive interventions in accordance with the specifications of the progress monitoring tool or process on a schedule that allows a comparison of the child’s progress to the performance of peers, is appropriate to the child’s age and grade placement, and is appropriate to the skill area being monitored.
SECTION 8. PI 11.02 (11) and (12) are repealed.
SECTION 9. PI 11.36 (6) (a) is amended to read:
PI 11.36 (6) (a) Specific learning disability, pursuant to s. 115.76 (5) (a) 10., Stats., means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in anthe imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or performdo mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning problems that are primarily due to the resultpresence of visual, hearing, motor disabilities, cognitive disabilities, emotional disturbanceother areas of impairment under this chapter, or cultural, linguistic, environmental, or economic disadvantagefactors. SECTION 10. PI 11.36 (6) (c) 1. and 2. are repealed and recreated to read:
(c) 1. ‘Inadequate classroom achievement.’ Upon initial identification, both of the following apply:
a. The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age, or meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more area of potential specific learning disability when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child's age or grade.
b. The child's score, after intensive, evidence-based interventions, on one or more assessments of achievement is equal to or more than 1.25 standard deviations below the mean in one or more areas of potential specific learning disability when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child's age or grade. Assessments used under this subdivision paragraph shall be individually administered, norm-referenced, valid, reliable, and diagnostic of impairment in the area of potential specific learning disability. The criterion under this subdivision paragraph may not be used if the IEP team determines that the child cannot attain valid and reliable standard scores for academic achievement because of the child's test behavior, the child's language proficiency, an impairment of the child that interferes with the attainment of valid and reliable scores, or the absence of individually administered, norm-referenced, standardized, valid and reliable diagnostic assessments of achievement appropriate for the child's age and cultural and linguistic background. If the IEP team makes such a determination, it shall document the reasons why it was not appropriate to consider assessments of standardized achievement and shall document that inadequate classroom achievement exists in at least one area of potential specific learning disability using other empirical evidence. The IEP team may consider scores within 1 standard error of measurement of the 1.25 standard deviation criterion under this subdivision paragraph to meet the inadequate classroom achievement criteria under this subdivision if the IEP team determines the child meets all other criteria.
2. ‘Insufficient progress during intensive, evidence-based intervention.’ Upon initial identification, either of the following apply:
a. The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more area of potential specific learning disability when using a process based on the child's response to intensive, evidence-based interventions. Intensive, evidence-based interventions may be implemented prior to or after referral for special education. The IEP team shall consider progress monitoring data from a progress monitoring tool or practice during at least two intensive, evidence-based interventions that are matched to the child’s needs and implemented with adequate fidelity. The IEP team shall establish a stable baseline in accordance with the progress monitoring tool or process specifications. Progress monitoring shall be administered on a weekly or other schedule supported by empirical research that results in a reliable, valid and diagnostically accurate trend line of the rate of progress during intensive, evidence-based interventions. Rate of progress during intensive, evidence-based intervention is insufficient when any of the following are true: the rate of progress of the referred child is the same or less than that of the child’s same-age peers; the referred child's rate of progress is greater than that of the child’s same-age peers but will not result in the referred child reaching the average range of the child’s same-age peer's achievement for that area of potential specific learning disability in a reasonable period of time; or the referred child's rate of progress is greater than that of the child’s same-age peers, but the intensity of the resources necessary to continue this rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education.
b. When evaluating a child in a parentally-placed private school or home-based private education program, the IEP team may use a pattern of strengths and weaknesses as documented by each of the following: academic need in one or more area of potential specific learning disability; one or more areas of cognitive weakness that have an evidence-based link to problems in an identified area of potential specific learning disability; cognitive areas which are average or above; and an analysis of the findings for a pattern that will rule out or confirm the presence of a specific learning disability.
SECTION 11. PI 11.36 (6) (d) 1. a. and b. are amended to read:
PI 11.36 (6) (d) 1. a. The IEP team's findings under par. (c) are primarily due to cultural, linguistic, environmental, or economic disadvantage; cultural, factors; or any of the reasons specified under s. 115.782 (3) (a), Stats., or any of the impairmentsdisability categories under s. 115.76 (5), Stats., except s. 115.76 (5) (a) 10., Stats. b. The IEP team's findings under par. (c) were due to a lack of appropriate instruction in the area of potential specific learning disability in par. (c) 1.
SECTION 12. PI 11.36 (6) (d) 2. is renumbered PI 11.36 (6) (d) 2. (intro.) and amended to read:
2. The IEP team shall consider data demonstrating that prior to, or as a part of, an evaluation, the child was provided appropriate instruction in general education settings, delivered by qualified personnel. AppropriateGrade-level, appropriate instruction in reading, in order to comprehend and create text, shall include the following essential components of reading instruction as defined in 20 USC 6368 (3).: SECTION 13. PI 11.36 (6) (d) 2. a. to g. are created to read:
