Copies of Rule, Written Comments, Contact Person
The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate may be viewed and downloaded and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. (Search this Web site using the Natural Resources Board Order No. AM-24-07. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Ms. Eileen Pierce, South Central Regional Air and Waste Leader, 3911 Fish Hatchery Road, Madison, WI 53711 or by e-mail to
Eileen.Pierce@wisconsin.gov. Comments may be submitted until September 14, 2007. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. If you do not have Internet access, a personal copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate may be obtained from Robert Eckdale, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by calling (608) 266-2856.
Notice of Hearings
Public Instruction
Hearing Information
The hearings will be held as follows:
Date and Time Location
August 20, 2007 Eau Claire
3:00 – 5:00 p.m. UW Eau Claire
Schneider Hall
1702 Park Avenue
Room 225
August 22, 2007 Stevens Point
3:00 – 5:00 p.m. UW – Stevens Point
CPS Building
1901 Fourth Avenue
Room 116
August 23, 2007 Madison
3:00 - 5:00 p.m. GEF 3 Building
125 South Webster Street
Room 041
The hearing sites are fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Chrystyna Mursky, Consultant, Gifted and Talented, at (608) 267-9273 or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Rule, Written Comments, Contact Person
Lori Slauson, Administrative Rules and Federal Grants Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mail or email address no later than August 24, 2007, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis by the Department of Public Instruction
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Agency authority
Section
118.35 (2), Stats., requires the state superintendent to establish guidelines for the identification of gifted and talented pupils by rule.
Section
121.02 (5), Stats., requires the department to promulgate rules to implement and administer the 20 school district standards under s.
121.02 (1), Stats. Gifted and talented is one of those standards.
Related statute or rule
Section
118.35, Stats., programs for gifted and talented pupils.
Plain language analysis
In
Todd Palmer v. The State Of Wisconsin Department Of Public Instruction, the Court instructed the department to promulgate a rule establishing guidelines for identifying gifted and talented pupils as required under s.
118.35 (2), Stats., because its current rule under s.
PI 8.01 (2) (t), is not sufficient.
Therefore, the department is modifying s.
PI 8.01 (2) (t) to establish more specific guidelines for the identification of gifted and talented pupils. The rule requires the school district board to identify pupils in grades kindergarten through grade 12 in the five areas specified in statute. Multiple measures must be used to build a pupil profile, instruments and measures must be validated for the specific purposes for which they are being used, and the identification process and tools must be responsive to the pupil's economic conditions, race, gender, culture, native language, developmental differences, handicapping conditions, and other factors.
Federal regulations
N/A
Surrounding states regulations
• Illinois – Illinois' rules apply only to locally developed GT programs for which state funding is sought. Illinois State Code requires the use of multiple measures (3 or more); the measures must be valid for their purpose; the process must be fair and impartial; and assessment instruments must be sensitive to inclusion of underrepresented groups. Illinois also requires an appeals process. Illinois' State Code allows any “area of aptitude" to be identified, but there is “an emphasis on" language arts and math (the top 5% locally must be identified in these two areas). The identification process must be of equal rigor in each area of aptitude but does not specify identification can be in more than one area. Finally, a procedure for notifying parents of identification results must be provided and there must be an annual report to the parents and community.
• Iowa – Iowa requires a school improvement plan be in place for each district. The plan must include valid and systematic procedures including multiple selection criteria and goals and performance measures. GT policies must be free from discrimination practices in the education program. Iowa does not specify areas of identification; and does not specify whether identification can be in more than one category.
• Michigan – No rule requirements for gifted identification criteria or programs.
• Minnesota – No rule requirements to identify or serve gifted students.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The primary reference source for developing the proposed rule is the document, Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards, published by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). The NAGC supports and develops policies and practices that encourage and respond to the diverse expressions of gifts and talents in children and youth from all cultures, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic groups. It supports and engages in research and development, staff development, advocacy, communication, and collaboration with other organizations and agencies who strive to improve the quality of education for all students. The NAGC standards were developed in 1998 and represent consensus from professionals in the field on critical practice in gifted education. In addition, the proposed rule is consistent with the state superintendent's commitment to the children and youth of Wisconsin found in The New Wisconsin Promise.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
N/A
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules establish more specific guidelines for the identification of gifted and talented pupils. The size of the population of children identified as gifted and talented as a result of this rule is indeterminate. However, these rules are not expected to have a significant local or state fiscal effect. School districts may have to purchase some additional assessment materials if they need to use a tool they don't already have and assign staff to administer any new screening or testing that takes place.
There are no anticipated costs incurred by the private sector.
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Chrystyna Mursky, Consultant
Gifted and Talented
(608) 267-9273
Notice of Hearing
Transportation
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
85.16(1) and
343.51(1) and
(2), Stats., and interpreting ss.
340.01(43g),
341.14(1),
(1a),
(1e),
(1m),
(1q) or
(1r)(a),
343.51,
343.52,
346.50(1m),
(2a)(h),
(j), and
(k) and
(3), Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing in Room 144-B of the Hill Farms State Transportation Building, 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin on the
15th day of August, 2007, at
1:00 PM, to consider the amendment of ch.
Trans 130, Wisconsin Administrative Code, relating to special identification cards and special registration plates for physically disabled.
An interpreter for the hearing impaired will be available on request for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
Parking for persons with disabilities and an accessible entrance are available.
Analysis Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Statutes interpreted
Sections
340.01(43g),
341.14(1),
(1a),
(1e),
(1m),
(1q) or
(1r) (a),
343.51,
343.52,
346.50 (1m),
(2a)(h),
(j), and
(k) and
(3), Stats.
Statutory authority
Agency authority
The Department is required to provide special identification cards, to be used for access to reserved parking spaces, for persons with disabilities that limit or impair the ability to walk.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
Chapter
Trans 130 governs the issuance and use of cards and special registration plates that authorize special parking privileges for persons with certain physical disabilities, and for organizations that regularly transport such persons.
This rule amendment updates language to conform to recent statute changes: expanding the persons who are authorized to sign a health care provider statement, and requiring the applicant to retain a copy of the health care provider statement.
In addition, as required by s.
343.51(2m)(b), Stats., this rule amendment provides policy and procedure for requesting replacement cards, in order to deter practice of obtaining replacement cards which are not legitimately needed and may be fraudulently distributed.
Finally, this rule amendment distinguishes between cards issued to individuals and to organizations.
Federal regulations
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and consequent regulations of the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) govern states' issuance of disabled parking cards and license plates. Ch.
Trans 130 conforms to federal regulation.
Surrounding states regulation
Michigan: No fee is charged to replace a mutilated card, but the applicant must return the mutilated card. Replacement fee for lost or stolen card is $10. There is no limit on the number of replacements that can be requested. Initial permanent card is valid for 5 years and then renewed every 4 years.
Minnesota: Disability placards may be replaced if they are reported lost, stolen, or damaged. If a person reports 3 certificates lost in any 36-month period, they must explain why so many placards needed to be replaced, what they are doing to assure that placards are not lost in the future, and get permission from the State Council on Disability to receive another placard. By policy, damaged placards are requested to be turned in at the time of application for replacement and applications for placards reported stolen should include a copy of the police report; if this procedure is followed the stolen or damaged certificates do not count toward the lost certificate restriction. Long-term and permanent replacement placards are issued at no fee. Temporary and short-term placards require a $5 fee for replacement.
Illinois: Replacement fee $10. If a card is lost, stolen or damaged, the cardholder must submit a signed replacement card application. Only one card is issued per applicant. Fines for using lost, stolen, fraudulent, or altered card range from $1,000 to $2,500.
Iowa: No fee is charged for a replacement placard. If the request is for replacement of a temporary card, Iowa requires a new medical certification. No new certification needed for replacing a permanent card. There is no limit on the number of replacements that can be requested.
Factual data and analytical methodologies
Chapter
Trans 130 currently requires a person to check the reason that the person requires a replacement card: lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated or illegible, or name change; but DMV does not deny replacement card issuance.
DMV has considered several possible approaches to strengthen replacement card issuance:
• Ask for the return of mutilated or damaged cards; possibly ask for a police report for stolen cards. This approach may reduce requests but places some burden on the applicant.
• Ask a person to file request via law enforcement or court. The disadvantage is workload burden on the law enforcement or court.
• Establish a replacement fee, possibly coupled with no charge if there's a stolen card report. Again, this approach may reduce requests but places some burden on the applicant.
