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: PI 11.36(6)(d)1.b.b. The IEP team’s findings under par. (c) were due to a lack of appropriate instruction in the area of potential specific learning disability in par. (c) 1. PI 11.36(6)(d)2.2. The IEP team shall consider data demonstrating that prior to, or as a part of, an evaluation, the child was provided appropriate instruction in general education settings, delivered by qualified personnel. Appropriate instruction in reading shall include the essential components of reading instruction as defined in 20 USC 6368 (3). PI 11.36(6)(d)3.3. In addition to the requirements for IEP team membership under s. 115.78, Stats., the IEP team for children being evaluated for specific learning disabilities shall include all of the following members: PI 11.36(6)(d)3.a.a. At least one licensed person who is qualified to assess data on individual rate of progress using a psychometrically valid and reliable methodology. A psychometrically valid and reliable methodology relies on all data sources specified in par. (g)., analyzing progress monitoring data that exhibit adequate statistical accuracy for the purpose of identification of insufficient progress as compared to a national sample of same-age peers. PI 11.36(6)(d)3.b.b. At least one licensed person who has implemented scientific, research-based or evidence-based, intensive interventions with the referred pupil. PI 11.36(6)(d)3.c.c. At least one licensed person who is qualified to conduct individual diagnostic evaluations of children. PI 11.36(6)(d)3.d.d. The child’s licensed general education teacher; or if the child does not have a licensed general education classroom teacher, a general education classroom teacher licensed to teach a child of the same age; or for a child of less than school age, an individual licensed to teach a child of the same age. PI 11.36(6)(e)1.1. The LEA shall ensure that the child is systematically observed in the child’s learning environment, including the general classroom setting when possible, to document the child’s academic performance and behavior in any of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities under par. (c) 1. PI 11.36(6)(e)2.a.a. The IEP team, in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, shall use information from a systematic observation conducted by a member of the IEP team. PI 11.36(6)(e)2.b.b. The systematic observation of routine classroom instruction and monitoring of the child’s performance in at least one of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities under par. (c) 1., may be conducted before the child was referred for evaluation, or the systematic observation of the child’s academic performance in at least one of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities under par. (c) 1., shall be conducted after the child has been referred for an evaluation and parental consent is obtained. PI 11.36(6)(e)2.c.c. If the child is less than school age or out of school, at least one member of the IEP team shall conduct a systematic observation of the child in an environment appropriate for a child of that age. PI 11.36(6)(e)2.d.d. If the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions, the IEP team shall use information from a systematic observation of pupil behavior and performance in the area or areas of potential specific learning disability during intensive intervention for that area, conducted by an individual who is not responsible for implementing the interventions with the referred pupil. PI 11.36(6)(e)3.3. Each IEP team member shall certify in writing whether the evaluation report reflects the member’s conclusion. If it does not reflect the member’s conclusion, the group member shall submit a separate statement presenting the member’s conclusion. PI 11.36(6)(e)4.4. A child determined to be eligible for special education and related services under this chapter remains eligible for special education and related services upon transfer to another school or LEA. The child continues to be eligible for special education and related services unless, upon re-evaluation, the child is no longer found eligible. PI 11.36(6)(f)(f) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility shall contain a statement including all of the following: PI 11.36(6)(f)2.2. The basis for making the determination, including an assurance that the determination has been made in accordance with s. 115.782, Stats. PI 11.36(6)(f)3.3. The relevant behavior, if any, noted during the observation of the child and the relationship of that behavior to the child’s academic functioning in the area of potential learning disability in par. (c) 1. PI 11.36(6)(f)4.4. Documentation that the intensive intervention was applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, was closely aligned to pupil need, and was culturally appropriate. PI 11.36(6)(f)6.6. Whether the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards consistent with par. (c) 1.; and the child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards consistent with par. (c) 2. a.; or until three years after December 1, 2010, the child exhibits a significant discrepancy between the child’s academic achievement in any of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities under par. (c) 1. and intellectual ability consistent with par. (c) 2. b. PI 11.36(6)(f)7.7. The determination of the IEP team concerning the effects of a visual, hearing, or motor disability; cognitive disability; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; environmental or economic disadvantage; or limited English proficiency on the child’s achievement level.