Scope Statements
Children and Families
Family and Economic Security, Chs.
DCF 101–153
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on January 4, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Intentional program violations of public assistance programs.
Rule Type
Permanent.
Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A
Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
2011 Wisconsin Act 202 also creates a definition of “intentional program violation" for ch.
49, Stats., at s.
49.001 (3m), Stats. The term “intentional program violation" appears in s.
49.161 (3), Stats., on recouping an overpayment that resulted from an intentional program violation of ss.
49.141 to
49.161, Stats., or of rules promulgated under those sections from the monthly benefit payment of a current Wisconsin Works participant. Before
2011 Wisconsin Act 202, the term “intentional program violation" used in s.
49.161 (3), Stats., was not defined. Section
DCF 101.23 (5) (b) is similar to s.
49.161 (3), Stats., except it has had an applicable definition of “intentional program violation" at s.
DCF 101.23 (1) (f) since its creation in 2005. The proposed rules will repeal and recreate the definition of “intentional program violation" in s.
DCF 101.23 (1) (f) to make it the same as the definition of “intentional program violation" in s.
49.001 (3m), Stats., as created by
2011 Wisconsin Act 202.
Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule
Section
49.161 (3), Stats., provides that if a W-2 participant receiving a monthly benefit payment under s.
49.148 (1), Stats., is liable for an overpayment that is the result of an intentional program violation of ss.
49.141 to
49.161, Stats., or of rules promulgated under those sections, the department shall deduct a specified portion of the participant's monthly benefit payment to recover the overpayment.
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., expressly confers rule-making authority on each agency to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
50 hours.
List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule contains technical corrections that will bring ch.
DCF 101, relating to Wisconsin Works, into compliance with changes made in
2011 Wisconsin Act 202. The organizations that registered as lobbyists on the bill that created Act 202 were the National Association of Social Workers - Wisconsin Chapter, Wisconsin Council on Children & Families, Fox Cities Chamber of Commerce & Industry, and Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc.
Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that Is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
None.
Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule Is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
None.
Contact Person
Public Instruction
Per the Dane County Circuit Court order issued in Coyne, et al. v. Walker, et al., Case No. 11-CV-4573, the Department of Public Instruction is not required to get the Governor's approval for this statement of scope.
Rule No.
Relating to
The educator effectiveness equivalency process.
Rule Type
Permanent and emergency.
Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
Section
115.415 (3), Stats., requires the department to establish an equivalency process for reviewing alternative models of evaluating educator practice. The statute requires the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness (EE) System to be fully implemented and mandatory throughout the entire state by the 2014-15 school year. The full pilot, which allows schools and districts to implement the state EE model and provide feedback, will go into effect during the 2013-14 school year. Districts intending on applying for an equivalency review of an alternative model in 2013-14 must alert DPI in writing of their intention March 15, 2013 and submit their application on or before April 15, 2013. In future years, applicants must alert DPI in writing of their intention by January 15 of the preceding school year, and they must submit their application by March 15 of that year in order to be approved. DPI will continue to modify and refine its system pending feedback from pilot participants and ongoing development (e.g., education specialists). As such, applicants must apply for equivalency annually until DPI is no longer refining the system and evaluating its associated equivalency review process, at which point applicants may receive approval for an extended period of time so long as they continue to meet the required demonstrations and assurances.
In order to have alternative models available for pilot use in the 2013-14 school year and to allow districts using the models opportunities to make modifications prior to Full Implementation (2014-15), there is an urgent need to get the equivalency process in place to approve other evaluation models. If school districts are not permitted to adopt alternative models, they will be denied the flexibility to adapt the EE model to fit their local needs. This will lead to inefficient use of funds in some districts until those districts are able to change to alternative models that best meet their needs. Additionally, students in those districts will not benefit from having their teachers and principals evaluated in a way that best meets local needs. Thus, preservation of the public welfare necessitates that Wisconsin implement the EE program in an efficient and effective manner in order to ensure that scarce resources continue to be used wisely so that Wisconsin can continue to provide the best possible learning environment for its students.
Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
In order to account for the fact that any one evaluation system may not suit each district, the Wisconsin Legislature required DPI to develop an application and approval process for districts wishing to use alternative models to measure teacher or principal practice. The legislation states the following requirements of the Equivalency Process:
• The process shall be based on the criteria established in the 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium and the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Educational Leadership Policy Standards.
• A school district or charter school that uses this process shall evaluate the performance of teachers in the following domains: 1) planning and preparation; 2) the classroom environment; 3) instruction; and 4) professional responsibilities and development.
The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System is designed to evaluate teachers and principals with a fair, credible, and valid system that uses multiple measures across two main areas: educator practice and student outcomes. Within the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System, only models of educator practice are subject to equivalence; the equivalency process does not apply to the measures of student outcomes.
Applications for equivalency status will be measured based on certain demonstrations and assurances to align with similar standards set forth by the state.
Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
The evaluation system for educator performance was previously determined by local school districts and teachers' unions. In many cases, this meant there was no standardized evaluation system at all. The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System is the first systematic statewide attempt to evaluate teacher performance. In addition to having the standard evaluation model, DPI is also allowing school districts to submit an alternative model to DPI if the school district feels that an alternative model would better measure educator performance in that particular district.
The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System is an innovative program that is designed to measure teacher and principal performance by balancing assessment of educator practice and student outcomes. DPI is proposing a process that would allow school districts to design their own assessment model for educator practice. However, these alternative models must still reflect the valuable principles underlying the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System. Thus, school districts must still evaluate the performance of teachers in the areas of planning and preparation; the classroom environment; instruction; and professional responsibilities and development. Additionally, the evaluation process must reflect the criteria in the 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium and the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Educational Leadership Policy Standards.
Without this rule, there would not be a process to approve alternative models and school districts would not be allowed to use alternative models. This is undesirable because the option to use an alternative model allows school districts the flexibility to meet their local needs. Additionally, DPI will ensure that all alternative models meet certain standards. Without including DPI in this review and approval process, school districts could minimize or even avoid implementing the EE System and their students would not benefit from the program's results. Thus, the Wisconsin State Legislature has statutorily required that DPI develop a process to approve equivalent, alternative models.
Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
115.415 Educator effectiveness.
(1) The department shall develop an educator effectiveness evaluation system and an equivalency process aligned with the department's evaluation system for the evaluation of teachers and principals of public schools, including teachers and principals of a charter school established under s.
118.40(2r), as provided in this section. Each school board and the governing body of each charter school established under s.
118.40(2r) shall evaluate teachers and principals in the school district or charter school beginning in the 2014-15 school year.
(2) The department shall develop an educator effectiveness evaluation system according to the following framework:
