Iowa: Under Iowa Admin. Code Ch. 41 281.41.50(10), “specific learning disability” means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. Further, Iowa Admin. Code requires that for the identification of students with a specific learning disability, the state’s area education agencies, or, if applicable, the state education agency must undertake activities similar to the activities undertaken for public school children. Michigan: Under Michigan Admin. Code R. 340.1713 (1), “specific learning disability” means a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of cognitive impairment, of emotional impairment, of autism spectrum disorder, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. Further, Michigan Admin. Code permits school districts to consider either patterns of strengths and weaknesses and scientific, research-based interventions in identifying children with a specific learning disability.
Minnesota: Under Minnesota Admin. Rules 3525.1341, “specific learning disability” means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Further, Minnesota Admin. Rules allows school districts to choose whether they will conduct evaluations based on scientific, research-based interventions or patterns of strengths and weaknesses but requiring that evaluations must be conducted the same way for all students once the evaluation method has been chosen.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies:
Chapter PI 11 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code contains the current rules governing the education of children with disabilities, including rules around the identification of children with specific learning disabilities. Under current rule, a specific learning disability “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.”
The department’s experience with implementing the current rule has shown that the current criteria qualifying a child with an SLD is difficult to implement with evaluations of private school and homeschool students. For example, local education agencies cannot assure or require a private school to provide instruction that meets the standards of “appropriate instruction” or “qualified personnel” within the current rule. Local educational agencies have found it difficult to determine and document many requirements in the rule, including: whether the child’s private school provided “appropriate instruction delivered by qualified personnel, including appropriate instruction in reading,” as defined in the current rule; the relevant behavior of the child, and the relationship of that behavior to the child’s academic functioning in the area of potential learning disability; and whether the intensive intervention was applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, was closely aligned to pupil need, and was culturally appropriate. Further, since the licensing requirements for private schools are different than that of public schools, private schools and homeschools may not have the appropriately licensed staff members to deliver scientific, research-based interventions to children suspected of having an SLD or may choose not to provide them. Finally, private schools and homeschools are not required to have multi-tiered systems of support for providing high quality interventions, like that of public schools. Therefore, these interventions may not exist in private schools and homeschools when conducting an SLD evaluation and conducting these interventions in the public school require the student to potentially miss a significant part of instruction in the private school. Additionally, the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs has stated that an LEA cannot require a private school to implement an RTI process before evaluating private school children. The need to conduct evaluations of private school children with fidelity is not only to meet federal Child Find requirements but has increased importance to support school districts and private schools in implementing the Special Needs Scholarship Program. As such, the department proposes to update criteria for identifying children with an SLD by allowing IEP teams to use significant discrepancy for the evaluation of private school and home-based private education students. The use of significant discrepancy in rule aligns ch. PI 11 with federal law, which permits the use of the significant discrepancy method for identifying a child with an SLD. Without a rule change, the department will continue to implement ch. PI 11 as written, and school districts would be required to conduct SLD evaluations of private school and homeschool students using the criteria in current rule. 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 11.36 (6) (c) 2. b. and (Note) are amended to read:
PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. b. Significant discrepancy or insufficient progress in achievement as compared to measured ability. This subdivision paragraph does not apply three years after December 1, 2010The method set out in this subdivision paragraph 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 subdivision paragraph. Upon such request, the IEP team shall consider whether use of the method set out in this subdivision paragraph to evaluate the child is feasible. If the IEP team determines that it is not feasible to use the method set out in this subdivision paragraph, the reason for that determination shall be provided to the parent in writing. The method set out in this subdivision paragraph 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 subdivision paragraph, 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.
(Note) Appendix A specifies the recommended regression formulaincludes a resource for manually calculating significant discrepancy scores. This appendix does not apply three years after December 1, 2010.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE:
The proposed rules contained in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month commencing after the date of publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.
