Comparison with federal regulations
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was first enacted in 1965 and reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. All school districts in Wisconsin receive some federal funding under ESEA.
To receive funding under the Act, the department is required to submit a plan to the USDE under
20 USC 6311. In general, the plan must demonstrate that the state has developed and is implementing a single, statewide state accountability system that will be effective in ensuring that all local educational agencies, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools make adequate yearly progress. Under the plan, all Wisconsin school districts and individual schools within each district must meet the state's four adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives each year. The first two objectives, based on Wisconsin's statewide standardized tests in reading and mathematics, have proficiency targets. The other two objectives are:
•
95 percent of enrolled students participating in statewide reading and mathematics assessments, which include the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations (WKCE) and the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (WAA-SwD).
•
A high school graduation rate of at least 85 percent or growth of at least 2 percent from the prior year on these indicators and elementary and middle school attendance rates of at least 85 percent or any growth from the prior year on these indicators.
The four AYP objectives apply to all students as well as to subgroups of students of sufficient size. Schools that miss the same AYP objective for one or more student groups for two consecutive years are identified for improvement.
The department applies USDE-approved statistical procedures to ensure decision consistency in reviewing AYP and in identifying schools and districts for improvement. Student proficiency is based on the achievement of students enrolled for the full academic year. District accountability is divided into grade spans. A district must miss the same AYP target across elementary, middle, and high school for two consecutive years to be found in need of improvement. The subsequent years of school and district improvement are described in
Wisconsin Public Schools-Levels of Accountability, available on the DPI website at
http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/doc/sifilevels.doc.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota do not have administrative rules relating to education reform.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rule references Wisconsin's state plan that is required under
20 USC 6311 in determining districts or schools that are in need of improvement or low performing. The methods used in making these determinations are complicated and have to be approved by the USDE. The department prefers a consistent approach be used in making these determinations so that state rules do not unintentionally conflict with the federally approved method.
Small Business Impact
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact nor fiscal impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
Assumptions used in arriving at fiscal estimate
2009 Wisconsin Act 215 requires schools and school districts to implement certain provisions if they are considered in need of improvement for a certain period of time or are considered low performing. The Act also authorizes the state superintendent of public instruction to intervene in a school district if they are considered in need of improvement for a certain period of time or are considered low performing. The Act requires rules to establish criteria and procedures for determining whether a school or school district is in need of improvement and whether a school is among the lowest performing 5 percent of all public schools in the state. In promulgating these rules, the state superintendent is required to consult with the school district or school board president, the school district administrator, and labor organizations representing employees of each school district that is immediately affected by the Act and legislators whose legislative districts include any portion of each school district.
State fiscal effect
The school and school district identification criteria established in the rule will have no fiscal effect as the department already carries out these responsibilities under the No Child Left Behind Act. However, it is not possible to estimate the directives the department may issue under the Act or how much staff time would be required to ensure those directives are carried out properly by schools and school districts. To accomplish the purposes of the Act, work priorities within the department may need to change but it is assumed that such changes can be absorbed by existing staff. It is also assumed that the cost of writing and promulgating the rules required by this Act can be absorbed by the department.
Local government fiscal effect
The schools and school districts identified under the rule may have a fiscal effect associated with implementing the directives under the Act. However, because these schools and school districts receive federal funds to implement many of these provisions, any local costs, if any, are indeterminate. The department does not have data that would indicate the expense to those local schools or school districts.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A.
Agency Contact Person
Scott Jones, Special Assistant
Office of the State Superintendent
Phone: (608) 267-9269
Notice of Hearings
Public Instruction
Hearing Information
Date: July 23, 2010
Time: 9:00 - 11:00 a.m.
Location: Madison
GEF 3 Building
125 South Webster Street
Room 041
Date: August 4, 2010
Time: 1:00 - 3:00 p.m.
Location: Chippewa Falls
CESA 10
725 West Park Avenue
Room BC
The hearing sites are fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Julie Brilli, Director, Teacher Education, Professional Development and Licensing at
julie.brilli@dpi.wi.gov or (608) 266-0986 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 Proposed Rule
Lori Slauson
Administrative Rules and Federal Grants Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Submittal of Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mail or email address no later than August 9, 2010, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Public Instruction
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Section
115.28 (7) (a), Stats., requires the state superintendent to license all teachers for the public schools of the state, make rules establishing standards of attainment and procedures for the examination and licensing of teachers within the limits prescribed in ss.
118.19 (2) and
(3),
118.192 and
118.195, and prescribe by rule standards and procedures for the approval of teacher preparatory programs leading to licensure.
Section
118.40 (2r) (a), Stats., requires the department to promulgate rules to define the term “instructional staff" of charter schools established under s.
118.40 (2r), Stats.
Section
121.02 (1) (a) 2., Stats., requires the department to promulgate rules to define the term “instructional staff" in charter schools.
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., gives an agency rule-making authority to interpret the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
The department proposes modifying ch.
PI 34, Wis. Admin. Code, to provide for educator license flexibility, clarification, and other minor revisions as follows:
Flexibility:
•
Allowing IHE faculty to supervise clinical students or student teachers if they have experiences other than three years of PK-12 teaching experience.
•
Allowing flexibility for students completing their student teaching placement outside the state of Wisconsin.
•
Allowing a person holding a professional educator license in language arts (English literature and composition, journalism, speech or broadfield) to get another language arts license at the same developmental level if he or she completes a DPI prescribed exam.
•
Allowing a person holding a professional educator license in math or computer science to get a license in math or computer science at the same developmental level if he or she completes a DPI prescribed exam.
•
Allowing a person holding a professional educator license in science (physical science, chemistry, physics, earth and space, environmental, biology, or broadfield) to get another science license at the same developmental level if he or she completes a DPI prescribed exam.
•
Allowing a person holding a professional educator license in social studies (geography, history, political science, economics, psychology, sociology, or broadfield) to get another social studies license at the same developmental level if he or she completes a DPI prescribed exam.
•
Allowing a person holding a professional educator license in foreign language (French, German, Latin, Russian, Spanish, other) to get another foreign language license at the same developmental level if he or she completes a DPI prescribed exam.
•
Allowing a person holding a wide-range license (to teach all ages) to add another wide-range license in another subject based on a minor. This provision applies to specific licenses.
•
Changing the effective period of educational interpreters, school psychologists, and school guidance counselors licenses from 2 or 3 years to 5 years to give individuals enough time to complete stipulations that in some cases require evidence of successful work experience.
•
Requiring that persons teaching in core academic subjects in a charter school have a valid teaching license and one of the following: 1) a major or minor in the assigned subject area, 2) passed an examination prescribed by the department 3) complete a process that verifies content competencies authorized by the department. A school district may continue to request a charter school instructional staff license or permit on behalf of an individual. However, individuals will be required to submit a completed application for the license or permit. In addition, specific information relating to an applicant's specific teaching assignment and his or her qualifications will be required as part of the application process.
•
Moving the procedural requirements of requesting a charter school license from ch PI 8 to ch.
PI 34 for consistency. These requirements include how to request the license and specifying that the individual must volunteer for the assignment in which the license is being requested. This is required, in part, so that these licenses will not be acquired for an individual without the individual's knowledge.
•
Modifying language under the charter permit. A charter permit may be issued to a person assigned to teach in the area of their degree that has not “completed an approved program" as opposed to an already licensed teacher who does “not hold a current license or permit." This subtle change is meant to direct fully licensed teachers that do not meet the new core academic subject license requirements to obtain a one-year emergency license instead of a one-year charter school permit.
•
Clarifying that professional educator licenses may be issued to teachers, administrators or pupil services personnel who completed an approved program either in WI or outside the state and have completed 5 years of teaching, pupil services or administrator experience out-of-state corresponding to their license. As currently written, the rules imply that a professional educator license may only be issued to teachers who completed an approved program out of state (rather than instate) and have at least five years of teaching experience out of state.
Clarification/Minor Revisions:
•
Eliminating definitions that are not used in the rule and are, therefore, unnecessary.
•
Modifying definitions to clarify meaning or intent.
•
Defining “core academic subject" to reflect the definition of core academic subject under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Core academic subjects include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history and geography. The department has further clarified the “arts" as including music, theatre, and dance.
•
Changing the phrase “continuous process review" to “continuous review process" throughout the rule for clarification.
•
Clarifying that potential nonapproval of an institution of higher education's (IHE) professional program leading to licensure will come from the department rather than a department liaison or consultant.
•
Replacing the term “teaching practice" with “clinical program" throughout the rule as clinical program is a defined term and should be used consistently.
•
Specifying a different effective date/period for licenses issued to mid-term program completers.
•
Clarifying that an initial educator license may be issued to an individual who completed an approved program after August 31, 2004 (the date the new program requirements under ch.
PI 34 became effective) for the first time in a license category.
•
Allowing an initial educator license to be renewed if the individual has not been employed as an educator for at least 3 years (rather than 2) within the 5-year period of issuance.
•
Clarifying that out of state teacher applicants may be issued a professional educator license (rather than an initial license) if they meet certain requirements.
•
Replacing the term “documentation portfolio" with “professional development plan" and three-member “panel" with “team" as the replacements are the appropriate terms to be used.
