PI 11.24(9)(d)2.a.a. The school occupational therapist shall have daily, direct contact on the premises with the school occupational therapy assistant. PI 11.24(9)(d)2.b.b. The school occupational therapist shall have direct, face-to-face contact with the school occupational therapy assistant at least once every 14 calendar days. Between direct contacts, the occupational therapist shall be available by telecommunication. The school occupational therapist providing general supervision under this subdivision shall provide an on-site reevaluation of each child’s occupational therapy a minimum of one time per calendar month or every tenth day of occupational therapy, whichever is sooner, and adjust the occupational therapy as appropriate. PI 11.24(9)(d)3.3. A full-time school occupational therapist may supervise no more than 2 full-time equivalent occupational therapy assistant positions which may include no more than 3 occupational therapy assistants. PI 11.24(9)(d)4.4. Notwithstanding the provisions under this paragraph, the act undertaken by a school occupational therapy assistant shall be considered the act of the supervising occupational therapist who has delegated the act. PI 11.24(9)(e)(e) Responsibility of school occupational therapist. A school occupational therapist under this subsection shall conduct all occupational therapy evaluations and reevaluations of a child, participate in the development of the child’s IEP, and develop occupational therapy treatment plans for the child. A school occupational therapist may not be represented by a school occupational therapy assistant on an IEP team. PI 11.24(10)(10) School occupational therapy assistants’ qualifications and supervision. PI 11.24(10)(a)(a) Licensure. A school occupational therapy assistant shall be licensed by the department under s. PI 34.092. PI 11.24(10)(b)(b) Supervision. The school occupational therapy assistant providing occupational therapy to a child under this section shall be supervised by a school occupational therapist as specified under sub. (9) (d). PI 11.24 HistoryHistory: Cr. Register, December, 1975, No. 240, eff. 1-1-76; am. (7) (b) 1 and (8) (b) 1, Register, February, 1976, No. 242, eff. 3-1-76; am. (7) (b) 4 and (8) (b) 2, Register, November, 1976, No. 251, eff. 12-1-76; am. (1) and (8) (b) 4., Register, February, 1983, No. 326, eff. 3-1-83; r. (11) (b) and (c), renum. (11) (a) to be (11), Register, September, 1986, No. 369, eff. 10-1-86; renum. from PI 11.19, Register, May, 1990, No. 413, eff. 6-1-90; am (7) (b) 4., Register, October, 1990, No. 418, eff. 11-1-90; am. (7) (a) and (8) (a), Register, March, 1992, No. 435, eff. 4-1-92; am. (1), (2) (intro.) and (3) (intro.), r. (2) (a) to (d), (3) (a), (b) and (11), r. and recr. (4) to (10), Register, July, 1993, No. 451, eff. 8-1-93; correction in (10) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats., Register, April, 1998, No. 508; r. (1) to (6), cr. (1) and (2), am. (7) (b) 1. (intro.), 3. (intro.), (e), (9) (b) 1. (intro.), 3. (intro.), (e) and (10) (b), Register, September, 1998, No. 513, eff. 10-1-98; am. (9) (c), Register, May, 2000, No. 533, eff. 6-1-00; corrections in (7) (a), (8) (a), (9) (a), and (10) (a) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 7., Stats., Register November 2010 No. 659; CR 16-027: am. (1) Register July 2016 No. 727, eff. 8-1-16; correction in (7) (a), (8) (a), (9) (a), (10) (a), made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 7., Stats., Register June 2019 No. 762. PI 11.35PI 11.35 Determination of eligibility. As part of an evaluation or reevaluation under s. 115.782, Stats., conducted by the IEP team in determining whether a child is or continues to be a child with a disability, the IEP team shall identify modifications, if any, that can be made in the regular education program, such as adaptation of content, methodology or delivery of instruction to meet the child’s needs identified under s. 115.782 (2) (b) 2., Stats., that will allow the child to access the general education curriculum and meet the educational standards that apply to all children. PI 11.35 HistoryHistory: Cr. Register, May, 1977, No. 257, eff. 6-1-77; am. (2) (intro.), Register, February, 1983, No. 326, eff. 3-1-83; r. (2) (c), renum. (2) (d) to (i) to be (2) (c) to (h), Register, September, 1986, No. 369, eff. 10-1-86; renum. from PI 11.34, Register, May, 1990, No. 413, eff. 6-1-90; r. and recr. (2) (b), cr. (2) (i) to (k), Register, April, 1995, No. 472, eff. 5-1-95; corrections made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 1., Stats., Register, March, 1996, No. 483; emerg. cr. (2) (L), eff. 6-25-96; cr. (2) (L), Register, January, 1997, No. 493, eff. 2-1-97; correction in (1) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats., Register, May, 2000, No. 533; r. (1m), (2) (intro.), (a), (ad), (c) to (h), renum. (2) (b) to be PI 11.36 (2) and (2) (i) to (L) to be PI 11.36 (8) to (11), cr. (2) and (3), Register, December, 2000, No. 540, eff. 7-1-01; CR 19-069: r. and recr. Register February 2020 No. 770, eff. 3-1-20. PI 11.36PI 11.36 Areas of impairment. All provisions in these rules shall be construed consistent with 20 USC 1400 et. seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder. PI 11.36(1)(a)(a) In this subsection, intellectual disability means significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills and manifested during the developmental period that adversely affects the child’s educational performance. PI 11.36(1)(b)(b) The IEP team may identify a child as having an intellectual disability if the child meets the criteria under subds. 1., 2., and 3. a. or b. as follows: PI 11.36(1)(b)1.1. The child has a standard score of 2 or more standard deviations below the mean on an individually administered intelligence test which takes into account the child’s mode of communication and is developed to assess intellectual functioning using this mode. More than one intelligence test may be used to produce a comprehensive result. PI 11.36(1)(b)2.2. The child has significant limitations in adaptive behavior that are demonstrated by a standard score of 2 or more standard deviations below the mean on standardized or nationally-normed measures, as measured by comprehensive, individual assessments that include interviews of the parents, tests, and observations of the child in adaptive behavior which are relevant to the child’s age, including at least one of the following: PI 11.36(1)(b)2.dm.dm. An overall composite score on a standardized measure of conceptual, social, and practical skills. PI 11.36(1)(b)3.a.a. Except as provided in subd. 3. c., the child is age 3 through 5 and has a standard score of 2 or more standard deviations below the mean on standardized or nationally-normed measures, as measured by comprehensive, individual assessments, in the following areas: language development and communication, cognition and general knowledge. PI 11.36(1)(b)3.b.b. Except as provided in subd. 3. c., the child is age 6 through 21 and has a standard score of 2 or more standard deviations below the mean on standardized or nationally-normed measures, as measured by comprehensive, individual assessments, in the following areas: written language, reading, and mathematics. PI 11.36(1)(b)3.c.c. When it is determined that reliable and valid assessment results under subd. 3. a. or b. are not possible due to the child’s functioning level or age, a standardized developmental scale or a body of evidence including informal measures shall be used to assess the child. PI 11.36(1)(b)4.4. Upon re-evaluation, a child who met identification criteria for cognitive disability prior to September 1, 2015, and continues to demonstrate a need for special education under s. PI 11.35, including specially designed instruction, is a child with a disability under this section. PI 11.36(2)(a)(a) Orthopedic impairment means a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes, but is not limited to, impairments caused by congenital anomaly, such as a clubfoot or absence of some member; impairments caused by disease, such as poliomyelitis or bone tuberculosis; and impairments from other causes, such as cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures. PI 11.36(2)(b)(b) Upon re-evaluation, a child who met initial identification criteria and continues to demonstrate a need for special education under s. PI 11.35, including specially designed instruction, is a child with a disability under this subsection. PI 11.36(3)(a)(a) Blind and visually impaired means even after correction a child’s visual functioning adversely affects educational performance. The IEP team may identify a child as blind and visually impaired after all of the following events occur: PI 11.36(3)(a)1.1. A teacher of the blind and visually impaired licensed under s. PI 34.051 conducts a functional vision evaluation which includes a review of medical information from an ophthalmologist or optometrist, formal and informal tests of visual functioning, and a determination of the implications of the blindness or visual impairment on the educational and curricular needs of the child. PI 11.36(3)(a)2.2. An orientation and mobility specialist licensed under s. PI 34.089 evaluates the child to determine if there are related orientation and mobility needs in home, school, or community environments. A child may meet the criteria under this subdivision even if they do not have orientation and mobility needs. PI 11.36(3)(b)(b) Upon re-evaluation, a child who met initial identification criteria and continues to demonstrate a need for special education under s. PI 11.35, including specially designed instruction, is a child with a disability under this section. PI 11.36(4)(a)(a) Deaf and hard of hearing means a decreased ability to detect sound in one or both ears with or without amplification, whether permanent or chronically fluctuating, which adversely affects a child’s educational performance. This includes academic performance, speech perception, speech production, or communication including language acquisition or expression. A current evaluation by an audiologist licensed under ch. 459, Stats., shall be one of the components for an initial evaluation of a child with suspected hearing loss. A teacher of the deaf or hard of hearing licensed under s. PI 34.050 must be a member of the IEP team when determining eligibility. PI 11.36(4)(b)(b) Upon re-evaluation, a child who met initial identification criteria and continues to demonstrate a need for special education under s. PI 11.35, including specially designed instruction, is a child with a disability under this section. PI 11.36(4m)(a)(a) Deafblind means concomitantly deaf or hard of hearing and blind or visually impaired, the combination of which causes severe communication and other developmental and educational needs such that the individual disability-related needs of the student extend beyond the instruction and supports required for a student who is solely deaf or hard of hearing or blind or visually impaired. PI 11.36(4m)(b)(b) Upon re-evaluation, a child who met initial identification criteria and continues to demonstrate a need for special education under s. PI 11.35, including specially designed instruction, is a child with a disability under this section. PI 11.36(5)(a)1.1. “Home languages” mean the languages used by the child or the parent of the child in their natural environment, or the modes of communication that are used by the child or the parent of the child in their natural environment, and may include languages other than English, sign language, braille, or augmentative and alternative communication. PI 11.36(5)(a)2.2. “Natural environment” means settings that are natural or typical for a same-aged child without a disability and may include school, home, or community. PI 11.36(5)(a)3.3. “Significant discrepancy” means performance on a norm-referenced assessment that meets the cutoff score for a speech or language disorder and is significantly below age- or grade-level expectations relative to a normative sample, often reported as a percentile or standard score. PI 11.36(5)(a)4.4. “Speech or language impairment” means an impairment of speech or sound production, voice, fluency, or language that adversely affects educational performance or social, emotional or vocational development. PI 11.36(5)(am)(am) Assessments and other evaluation materials used to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of a child’s speech and language development shall be provided and administered in the child’s home languages. Assessments and other evaluation materials shall be in the form most likely to yield accurate information unless it is not feasible to do so, and shall describe the child’s speech and language abilities and how those abilities impact the child’s progress in the general education environment relative to the speech and language demands of the classroom and curriculum. Interpretation of assessments shall be based on the representativeness of the normative sample and the psychometric properties of the assessment. PI 11.36(5)(b)(b) The IEP team may identify a child as having a speech or language impairment if the child meets the definition under par. (a) and meets any of the following criteria: PI 11.36(5)(b)1.1. Following consideration of the child’s age, culture, language background, and dialect, the child meets all of the following conditions for a speech sound disorder: PI 11.36(5)(b)1.a.a. The child’s speech sound production is documented to be delayed, as evidenced through at least one observation in a natural environment. PI 11.36(5)(b)1.b.b. The child’s speech sound production is documented to be delayed, as measured by a criterion-referenced assessment, such as a developmental scale or a phonetic inventory, or significant discrepancy in performance from typical on a norm-referenced assessment. PI 11.36(5)(b)1.c.c. The child’s intelligibility is below the expected range and not due to influences of home languages or dialect. Intelligibility ratings as documented by school staff or caregivers indicate an impact across environments. PI 11.36(5)(b)1.d.d. Speech sound production is less than 30% stimulable for incorrect sounds. PI 11.36(5)(b)2.2. Following consideration of the child’s age, culture, language background, or dialect, the child demonstrates the characteristics of a phonological disorder, which include both of the following: PI 11.36(5)(b)2.a.a. The child’s intelligibility is below the expected range and not due to influences of home languages or dialect. Intelligibility ratings as documented by school staff or caregivers indicate an impact across environments. PI 11.36(5)(b)2.b.b. The child’s phonological process use is documented to be non-developmental or outside of the expected developmental range, as evidenced through at least one observation in a natural environment, and by measurement of either the presence of one or more phonological processes occurring at least 40%, significant discrepancy in performance from typical on a norm-referenced assessment, or both. PI 11.36(5)(b)3.3. The child’s voice is impaired in the absence of an acute, respiratory virus or infection and not due to temporary physical factors such as allergies, short term vocal abuse, or puberty. Following consideration of the child’s age, culture, language background, or dialect, the child demonstrates characteristics of a voice impairment, which include any of the following: PI 11.36(5)(b)3.b.b. The child’s vocal pitch, including range, inflection, or appropriateness. PI 11.36(5)(b)3.c.c. The child’s vocal quality, including breathiness, hoarseness, or harshness. PI 11.36(5)(b)4.4. The child exhibits characteristics of a fluency disorder, following consideration of the child’s age, language background, culture, and dialect. The evaluation shall include a variety of measures, including case history, observation in natural environment, norm-referenced assessment or disfluency analysis, and result in evidence of atypical fluency. The presence of one or more of the following characteristics shall indicate a fluency disorder: PI 11.36(5)(b)4.a.a. Speech disfluencies associated with stuttering or atypical disfluency, which include repetitions of phrases, words, syllables, and sounds or dysrhythmic phonations such as prolongations of sounds or blockages of airflow typically in excess of 2% of total syllables, one second of duration, and two or more iterations in a repetition. Non-verbal physical movements, such as eye blinking or head jerking, may accompany the stuttering. Negative feelings about oral communication may be significant enough to result in avoidance behaviors in an attempt to hide or diminish stuttering. PI 11.36(5)(b)4.b.b. A speech rate that is documented to be rapid, irregular, or both and may be accompanied by sound or syllable omissions, sequencing errors, or a high number of non-stuttering speech disfluencies such as interjections, phrase and whole word repetitions, and revisions. The resulting speech fluency pattern is considered to be significantly disruptive to efficient communication. Negative feelings and attitudes about oral communication may or may not be present under this disfluency profile. PI 11.36(5)(b)5.5. Following consideration of the child’s age, culture, language background, or dialect, the child demonstrates a language impairment in the area of language form, content or use, as evidenced through an observation in a natural environment and by measurement of at least two of the following: PI 11.36(5)(b)5.d.d. Significant discrepancy from typical language skills on a norm-referenced assessment of comprehensive language. PI 11.36(5)(c)(c) The IEP team may not identify a child as a child with speech or language impairment when differences in speech or language are based on home languages, culture, or dialect unless the child has a speech or language impairment within the child’s home languages, culture, or dialect. In determining whether the child has a speech or language impairment, the IEP team shall consider all of the following: PI 11.36(5)(c)1.1. The child’s background knowledge, stage of language acquisition, experience with narratives, and exposure to vocabulary to discern speech or language ability from speech or language difference, such as differences due to lack of exposure, stage of language acquisition, cultural or behavioral expectations. PI 11.36(5)(c)2.2. Based on information and data collected, the IEP team must determine whether the child’s speech or language skills are a result of a speech or language impairment or a difference due to culture, language background, or dialect. PI 11.36(5)(d)(d) In addition to the evaluations under pars. (am) to (c), the IEP team shall evaluate a child’s language by assessing the child’s augmentative and alternative communication skills, when appropriate to determine the child’s needs. PI 11.36(5)(e)1.1. A speech-language pathologist licensed under ch. PI 34 who shall incorporate information from the most recent assessment to assist the IEP team in documenting whether the child meets the criteria for a speech or language impairment as well as identifying the child’s speech or language needs. PI 11.36(5)(e)2.2. An educator with foundational knowledge in first and second language instruction and second language acquisition if the child is identified as an English Learner under 20 USC 7801 (20). PI 11.36(5)(f)(f) Upon re-evaluation, a child who met initial identification criteria and continues to demonstrate a need for special education under s. PI 11.35, including specially designed instruction, is a child with a disability under this section. PI 11.36(6)(a)(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 an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or perform 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 the result of visual, hearing, motor disabilities, cognitive disabilities, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, environmental, or economic disadvantage. PI 11.36(6)(b)(b) The LEA shall promptly request parental consent to evaluate a child to determine if the child needs special education and related services if, prior to referral, the child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided appropriate instruction in general education settings, delivered by qualified personnel, or whenever the child is referred for an evaluation. The LEA shall meet the timeframes under s. 115.78 (3) (a), Stats., unless extended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parents and IEP team. PI 11.36(6)(c)(c) The IEP team may identify a child as having a specific learning disability if both of the following apply: PI 11.36(6)(c)1.1. ‘Inadequate classroom achievement.’ Upon initial identification the child does not achieve adequately for his or her age, or meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematics problem solving. A child’s achievement is inadequate when the child’s score, after intensive intervention, on one or more assessments of achievement is equal to or more than 1.25 standard deviations below the mean in one or more of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities. Assessments used under this subdivision shall be individually administered, norm-referenced, valid, reliable, and diagnostic of impairment in the area of potential specific learning disabilities. The 1.25 standard deviation requirement under this subdivision 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. If the IEP team makes such a determination, it shall document the reasons why it was not appropriate to consider standardized achievement testing, and shall document that inadequate classroom achievement exists in at least one of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities using other empirical evidence. The IEP team may consider scores within 1 standard error of the measurement of the 1.25 standard deviation criterion above to meet the inadequate classroom achievement criteria under this subdivision if the IEP team determines the child meets all other criteria. PI 11.36(6)(c)2.2. ‘Insufficient progress.’ Upon evaluation, the child has made insufficient progress in one of the following areas: PI 11.36(6)(c)2.a.a. Insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention. The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities under subd. 1. when using a process based on the child’s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions. Intensive interventions may be implemented prior to referral, or as part of an evaluation, for specific learning disability. The IEP team shall consider progress monitoring data from at least two intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions, implemented with adequate fidelity and closely aligned to individual student learning needs. The median score of three probes is required to establish a stable baseline data point for progress monitoring. IEP teams shall use weekly or more frequent progress monitoring to evaluate rate of progress during intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions. Rate of progress during intensive 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 his or her same-age peers; the referred child’s rate of progress is greater than that of his or her same-age peers but will not result in the referred child reaching the average range of his or her same-age peer’s achievement for that area of potential disability in a reasonable period of time; or the referred child’s rate of progress is greater than that of his or her same-age peers, but the intensity of the resources necessary to obtain this rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education. If an LEA uses insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention under this subdivision paragraph for any child being evaluated for specific learning disabilities enrolled in a school, the LEA shall use insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention for all such evaluations of children enrolled in that school. At least ten days in advance of beginning to use insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention in a school, the LEA shall notify parents of all children enrolled in that school of the intent to use insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention. PI 11.36(6)(c)2.b.b. Significant discrepancy or insufficient progress in achievement as compared to measured ability. The method set out in this subd. 2. b. may be used only to evaluate a child attending a private school or participating in a home-based private educational program. A parent of a child attending a private school or participating in a home-based private educational program may request the IEP team to use the method set out in this subd. 2. b. Upon such request, the IEP team shall consider whether use of the method set out in this subd. 2. b. to evaluate the child is feasible. If the IEP team determines that it is not feasible to use the method set out in this subd. 2. b., the reason for that determination shall be provided to the parent in writing. The method set out in this subd. 2. b. shall not be used to evaluate a child attending a public school, including a public charter school. Upon initial evaluation the child exhibits a significant discrepancy between the child’s academic achievement in any of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities under subd. 1. and intellectual ability as documented by the child’s composite score on a multiple score instrument or the child’s score on a single score instrument. The IEP team may base a determination of significant discrepancy only upon the results of individually administered, norm-referenced, valid and reliable diagnostic assessment of achievement. A significant discrepancy means a difference between standard scores for ability and achievement equal to or greater than 1.75 standard errors of the estimate below expected achievement, using a standard regression procedure that accounts for the correlation between ability and achievement measures. This regression procedure shall be used except when the IEP team determines that the child cannot attain valid and reliable standard scores for intellectual ability or achievement because of the child’s test behavior, the child’s language, another impairment of the child that interferes with the attainment of valid and reliable scores or the absence of valid and reliable standardized, diagnostic tests appropriate for the child’s age. If the IEP team makes such a determination, it shall document the reasons why it was not appropriate to use the regression procedure and shall document that a significant discrepancy exists, including documentation of a variable pattern of achievement or ability, in at least one of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities under subd. 1. using other empirical evidence. If the discrepancy between the child’s ability and achievement approaches but does not reach the 1.75 standard error of the estimate cut-off for this subd. 2. b., the child’s performance in any of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities under subd. 1. is variable, and the IEP team determines that the child meets all other criteria under subd. 1., the IEP team may consider that a significant discrepancy exists. PI 11.36 NoteNote: Appendix A includes a resource for manually calculating significant discrepancy scores.
PI 11.36(6)(d)1.1. The IEP team may not identify a child as having a specific learning disability if it determines that any of the following apply:
/exec_review/admin_code/pi/11
true
administrativecode
/exec_review/admin_code/pi/11/36/3
Department of Public Instruction (PI)
administrativecode/PI 11.36(3)
administrativecode/PI 11.36(3)
section
true
