WISCONSIN S NEW RULE FOR SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES

1. WISCONSIN�S NEW RULE FORSPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES Effective December 1, 2010 The 2004 IDEA reauthorization included significant revisions to the SLD criteria. Following reauthorization, the department convened a broad based task force to revise Wisconsin�s rules for SLD eligibility. Following public hearings, input from the field and legislative review, the revised rules were published and went into effect on December 1, 2010. This presentation provides an overview of the new rules. Additional guidance will be developed to assist IEP teams in implementing these rules. The 2004 IDEA reauthorization included significant revisions to the SLD criteria. Following reauthorization, the department convened a broad based task force to revise Wisconsin�s rules for SLD eligibility. Following public hearings, input from the field and legislative review, the revised rules were published and went into effect on December 1, 2010. This presentation provides an overview of the new rules. Additional guidance will be developed to assist IEP teams in implementing these rules.

2. Effective Date The new rule goes into effect December 1, 2010 There is a three-year sunset on the use of significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress After November 30, 2013, districts will no longer be able to use significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress 6/24/2011 2 WDPI

3. Wisconsin Eligibility Criteria 6/24/2011 3 WDPI Before we get into the SLD criteria, please be reminded with any special education evaluation (initial evaluation or reevaluation), two questions must be addressed by IEP teams when considering whether a student is a child with a disability and thus, eligible to receive special education. First, The student must meet eligibility criteria for having one of the impairments listed in state and federal law (e.g. SLD) AND, as a result The student must be found to need special education to address the needs associated with the impairment PI 11.35 (2) A child shall be identified as having a disability if the IEP team has determined the child has an impairment that adversely affects the child�s educational performance, and the child, as a result thereof, needs special education and related servicesBefore we get into the SLD criteria, please be reminded with any special education evaluation (initial evaluation or reevaluation), two questions must be addressed by IEP teams when considering whether a student is a child with a disability and thus, eligible to receive special education. First, The student must meet eligibility criteria for having one of the impairments listed in state and federal law (e.g. SLD) AND, as a result The student must be found to need special education to address the needs associated with the impairment PI 11.35 (2) A child shall be identified as having a disability if the IEP team has determined the child has an impairment that adversely affects the child�s educational performance, and the child, as a result thereof, needs special education and related services

4. Significant Changes Effective December 1, 2010 (all initial evals.) Upon initial identification, a student�s achievement is inadequate when the student�s score, after intensive intervention on one or more assessments of achievement, is equal to or more than 1.25 standard deviations below the mean in one or more of eight areas PI 11.36(6)(c)(1) 6/24/2011 4 WDPI The following three slides summarize the significant changes for all evaluations where SLD is first considered, whether or not LEAs have begun using insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine insufficient progress. There are no significant changes for reevaluations of SLD eligibility. The following three slides summarize the significant changes for all evaluations where SLD is first considered, whether or not LEAs have begun using insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine insufficient progress. There are no significant changes for reevaluations of SLD eligibility.

5. Significant Changes Effective December 1, 2010 (all initial evals.) Documentation the intensive intervention was applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, was closely aligned to student need, and was culturally appropriate PI 11.36(f)(4) 6/24/2011 5 WDPI For all initial SLD evaluations, the IEP team must document the student received intensive intervention. Intensive intervention means systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of pupil need used with individual or small groups of pupils, focusing on single or small numbers of discrete skills, with substantial numbers of instructional minutes in addition to those provided to all pupils. PI 11.02 (6t) and (6m) The IEP team determines whether the intervention used meets this definition. For example, the IEP team determines if a �substantial number of instructional minutes� has been provided. Although the documentation of intensive intervention is a new requirement for initial SLD evaluations, the IEP team is still required to document prior interventions as for all initial evaluations and reevaluations as part of the evaluation report (ER-1) For all initial SLD evaluations, the IEP team must document the student received intensive intervention. Intensive intervention means systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of pupil need used with individual or small groups of pupils, focusing on single or small numbers of discrete skills, with substantial numbers of instructional minutes in addition to those provided to all pupils. PI 11.02 (6t) and (6m) The IEP team determines whether the intervention used meets this definition. For example, the IEP team determines if a �substantial number of instructional minutes� has been provided. Although the documentation of intensive intervention is a new requirement for initial SLD evaluations, the IEP team is still required to document prior interventions as for all initial evaluations and reevaluations as part of the evaluation report (ER-1)

6. Significant Changes Effective December 1, 2010 (all evaluations) Additional Exclusionary Factor The IEP Team may not identify a student if the team�s findings of inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress are due to lack of appropriate instruction in the area(s) of potential specific learning disability under consideration PI 11.36(6)(d)(1) 6/24/2011 6 WDPI The remaining exclusionary factors have not changed and still apply. These will be shared later in the presentation. The remaining exclusionary factors have not changed and still apply. These will be shared later in the presentation.

7. SLD Evaluation Impairment Criteria Initial SLD Evaluations We will now review the new SLD impairment criteria. This addresses the first eligibility question, �Does the student have an impairment.� These criteria apply to evaluations where SLD is first considered. The reevaluation criteria for SLD has not changed from the previous rules and will be reviewed later in the presentation. We will now review the new SLD impairment criteria. This addresses the first eligibility question, �Does the student have an impairment.� These criteria apply to evaluations where SLD is first considered. The reevaluation criteria for SLD has not changed from the previous rules and will be reviewed later in the presentation.

8. SLD Impairment Criteria Inadequate Classroom Achievement Insufficient Progress Exclusionary Factors PI 11.36(6)(c) and (d) 6/24/2011 8 WDPI SLD means inadequate classroom achievement paired + insufficient progress AND Exclusionary factors do not explain the student�s achievement and progress delays in one or more of eight specific areas As of December 1, 2010 Wisconsin no longer requires documentation of an information processing deficit. Each of these three criteria will be explained in the following slidesSLD means inadequate classroom achievement paired + insufficient progress AND Exclusionary factors do not explain the student�s achievement and progress delays in one or more of eight specific areas As of December 1, 2010 Wisconsin no longer requires documentation of an information processing deficit. Each of these three criteria will be explained in the following slides

9. SLD Impairment Criteria Areas oral expression listening comprehension written expression basic reading skill reading fluency reading comprehension mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving 6/24/2011 9 WDPI These are the eight areas that are considered when the IEP team determines whether the student meets classroom achievement and insufficient progress criteria. Students must meet criteria in one or more of these areas to be considered for identification as a student with the impairment of SLD. These are the eight areas that are considered when the IEP team determines whether the student meets classroom achievement and insufficient progress criteria. Students must meet criteria in one or more of these areas to be considered for identification as a student with the impairment of SLD.

10. Inadequate Classroom Achievement Upon initial identification the student does not achieve adequately for his or her age, or meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight areas when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the student�s age PI 11.36 (6) (c) 1 6/24/2011 10 WDPI Classroom achievement delay continues to be a criterion for identification of SLD. However, the new rules are more specific about when achievement is inadequate. Classroom achievement delay continues to be a criterion for identification of SLD. However, the new rules are more specific about when achievement is inadequate.

11. Inadequate Classroom Achievement A child�s achievement is inadequate when the student�s score, after intensive intervention, on one or more assessments of achievement is equal to or more than 1.25 standard deviations (SD) below the mean in one or more of the eight areas Assessments shall be individually administered, norm referenced, valid and reliable The IEP team may consider scores within 1 standard error of the measurement (SEM) PI 11.36 (6) (c) 1 6/24/2011 11 WDPI This is the standard IEP teams must use to determine whether a student�s achievement is inadequate. Achievement for this criterion is measured using an individually administered norm referenced test. If the IEP team determines the student�s achievement can not be reliably assessed using a standardized test, the team must document the reasons why testing is not appropriate and document classroom achievement using other empirical evidence. This is the standard IEP teams must use to determine whether a student�s achievement is inadequate. Achievement for this criterion is measured using an individually administered norm referenced test. If the IEP team determines the student�s achievement can not be reliably assessed using a standardized test, the team must document the reasons why testing is not appropriate and document classroom achievement using other empirical evidence.

12. Definition: Intensive Intervention Intensive intervention means systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of student need used with individual or small groups focusing on single or small numbers of discrete skills with substantial numbers of instructional minutes in addition to those provided to all students PI 11.02 (6t) and (6m) 6/24/2011 12 WDPI The IEP team determines whether the intervention was intensive based on this definition including whether a substantial number of minutes of instruction has been provided. The IEP team determines whether the intervention was intensive based on this definition including whether a substantial number of minutes of instruction has been provided.

13. Insufficient Progress Upon initial evaluation, the student has made insufficient progress as documented by Insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention OR Significant Discrepancy (may use until November 30, 2013) 6/24/2011 13 WDPI This is the second criterion for SLD identification. Until November 30, 2013, schools can decide whether to use documentation of an insufficient student response to intensive intervention or a significant discrepancy between measured achievement and ability to determine insufficient progress. The rule for applying significant discrepancy has not changed. We will discuss using data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine insufficient progress later in the presentationThis is the second criterion for SLD identification. Until November 30, 2013, schools can decide whether to use documentation of an insufficient student response to intensive intervention or a significant discrepancy between measured achievement and ability to determine insufficient progress. The rule for applying significant discrepancy has not changed. We will discuss using data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine insufficient progress later in the presentation

14. Exclusions The IEP Team may not identify a student if the team�s findings of inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress are primarily due to: Environmental, economic disadvantage, or cultural factors Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction Lack of instruction in math Limited proficiency in English Any of the other impairments Lack of appropriate instruction in the area(s) of potential specific learning disability under consideration PI 11.36(6)(d)(1) 6/24/2011 14 WDPI This is the third element the IEP team must consider when determining if a student has the impairment of SLD. Exclusionary factors must be considered for both initial evaluations and reevaluations. In considering exclusions, the IEP team reviews data demonstrating prior to, or as a part of the evaluation, the student was provided appropriate instruction in general education settings, delivered by qualified personnel. PI 11.36 (6)(d)2 The exclusions are the same as in the previous rule except More detail was added to the consideration of have been added to the consideration of appropriate instruction in reading. IEP teams are directed to consider the essential components of reading instruction as specified in ESEA. Appropriate instruction in the eight areas of potential SLD was added. IEP teams only need to consider those areas related to the area(s) of concern being evaluated. This is the third element the IEP team must consider when determining if a student has the impairment of SLD. Exclusionary factors must be considered for both initial evaluations and reevaluations. In considering exclusions, the IEP team reviews data demonstrating prior to, or as a part of the evaluation, the student was provided appropriate instruction in general education settings, delivered by qualified personnel. PI 11.36 (6)(d)2 The exclusions are the same as in the previous rule except More detail was added to the consideration of have been added to the consideration of appropriate instruction in reading. IEP teams are directed to consider the essential components of reading instruction as specified in ESEA. Appropriate instruction in the eight areas of potential SLD was added. IEP teams only need to consider those areas related to the area(s) of concern being evaluated.

15. ExclusionsEssential Reading Components The term "essential components of reading instruction" means explicit and systematic instruction in: phonemic awareness phonics vocabulary development reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and reading comprehension strategies 20 USC 6368(3) 6/24/2011 15 WDPI These are the essential reading components from ESEAThese are the essential reading components from ESEA

16. Reevaluation A student who met initial SLD identification criteria and continues to demonstrate a need for special education, including specially designed instruction, is a child with a disability, unless exclusionary factors now apply. If a student with SLD performs to generally accepted expectations in the general education classroom without specially designed instruction, the IEP team shall determine whether the student is no longer a child with a disability. 11.36 (6)(h) 6/24/2011 16 WDPI SLD reevaluation criteria has not changed from the previous rule. The criteria for reevaluation continues to be different than that for initial SLD evaluations. In conducting a reevaluation, the IEP team does not have to apply initial SLD criteria for inadequate achievement and insufficient progress. However the IEP team needs to consider whether the student continues to have a need for special education. In making this decision, the IEP team considers the student�s current achievement and whether the student can meet general education expectations without specially designed instruction. Other requirements including observation, consideration of exclusionary factors and IEP team member written certification of agreement or disagreement still apply to reevaluations of students previously identified as having the impairment of SLD. SLD reevaluation criteria has not changed from the previous rule. The criteria for reevaluation continues to be different than that for initial SLD evaluations. In conducting a reevaluation, the IEP team does not have to apply initial SLD criteria for inadequate achievement and insufficient progress. However the IEP team needs to consider whether the student continues to have a need for special education. In making this decision, the IEP team considers the student�s current achievement and whether the student can meet general education expectations without specially designed instruction. Other requirements including observation, consideration of exclusionary factors and IEP team member written certification of agreement or disagreement still apply to reevaluations of students previously identified as having the impairment of SLD.

17. SLD Evaluation Process Requirements Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation We will now discuss the process requirements for conducting initial SLD evaluations and reevaluations of student�s previously identified has having SLD. Throughout the notes, we will specify when a requirement only pertains to evaluations considering SLD for the first time (referred to as �initial SLD evaluations�). Those requirements that only apply to determining insufficient progress based on the use of data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention will be addressed later in the presentation. We will now discuss the process requirements for conducting initial SLD evaluations and reevaluations of student�s previously identified has having SLD. Throughout the notes, we will specify when a requirement only pertains to evaluations considering SLD for the first time (referred to as �initial SLD evaluations�). Those requirements that only apply to determining insufficient progress based on the use of data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention will be addressed later in the presentation.

18. Systematic Observation The LEA shall insure the student is systematically observed in the student�s learning environment, including the general education classroom setting when possible, to document academic performance and behavior in any of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities PI 11.36(6)(e) 6/24/2011 18 WDPI Upon initial evaluation and reevaluation, all students being considered for the impairment of SLD must be observed in their learning environment; This should be a student�s general education classroom, whenever possible. The observation should provide information about the areas of concern being evaluated. Upon initial evaluation and reevaluation, all students being considered for the impairment of SLD must be observed in their learning environment; This should be a student�s general education classroom, whenever possible. The observation should provide information about the areas of concern being evaluated.

19. Systematic Observation May be conducted before referral, or after referral and parental consent obtained If the student is less than school age or out of school, in an environment appropriate for a child of that age PI 11.36 (6)(e)(2)(a-c) 6/24/2011 19 WDPI The IEP team may rely on existing data from an observation of the student during routine classroom instruction conducted before the referral was made. In this case, the individual who conducted the observation should be appointed to the IEP team. If the observation was not made prior the referral, a member of the IEP team must conduct the observation, after parental consent is received There is an additional observation requirement once a school begins implementing analysis of a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine insufficient progress. This requirement will be addressed later in the presentation. The IEP team may rely on existing data from an observation of the student during routine classroom instruction conducted before the referral was made. In this case, the individual who conducted the observation should be appointed to the IEP team. If the observation was not made prior the referral, a member of the IEP team must conduct the observation, after parental consent is received There is an additional observation requirement once a school begins implementing analysis of a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine insufficient progress. This requirement will be addressed later in the presentation.

20. Documentation Requirements Documentation of the eligibility determination contains a statement that includes: Whether the student has a specific learning disability The basis for making the determination, including an assurance that the determination has been made in accordance with 115.782 Stats. (State requirements for special education evaluation) 11.36 (6)(f) 6/24/2011 20 WDPI This applies to both initial evaluations and reevaluations. The IEP team documents it�s eligibility determination and the basis for it on the evaluation report. (see DPI Model forms ER-1 and ER-2)This applies to both initial evaluations and reevaluations. The IEP team documents it�s eligibility determination and the basis for it on the evaluation report. (see DPI Model forms ER-1 and ER-2)

21. Documentation Requirements The relevant behavior, if any, noted during observation and the relationship of that behavior to the student�s academic functioning in the area(s) of potential learning disability The intensive intervention was applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, was closely aligned to student need, and was culturally appropriate (initial SLD evaluations only) 11.36 (6)(f) 6/24/2011 21 WDPI These are additional documentation requirements. Note: the second requirement for documenting intensive intervention only applies to initial SLD evaluations. These are additional documentation requirements. Note: the second requirement for documenting intensive intervention only applies to initial SLD evaluations.

22. Documentation Requirements Educationally relevant medical findings, if any Documentation of inadequate classroom achievement (initial SLD evaluations only) Documentation of insufficient progress (initial SLD evaluations only) Using insufficient response to intensive intervention or significant discrepancy (significant discrepancy allowed until Nov. 30, 2013) 11.36 (6)(f) 6/24/2011 22 WDPI These are additional documentation requirements. Note: The second and third requirements only apply to initial SLD evaluations. These are additional documentation requirements. Note: The second and third requirements only apply to initial SLD evaluations.

23. Documentation Requirements IEP team determination concerning the effects on the student�s achievement level of a visual, hearing or motor disability cognitive or emotional behavioral disability cultural factors environmental or economic disadvantage limited English proficiency 11.36 (6)(f) 6/24/2011 23 WDPI Documentation of consideration of exclusionary factors apply to both initial SLD evaluations and reevaluations of student�s previously identified as having SLD.Documentation of consideration of exclusionary factors apply to both initial SLD evaluations and reevaluations of student�s previously identified as having SLD.

24. Other Process Requirements The IEP team shall base its decision on a comprehensive evaluation using formal and informal assessment data regarding academic achievement and learning behavior in accordance with s. 115.782, Stats. 11.36 (6)(g) 6/24/2011 24 WDPI The requirements for a comprehensive, non-discriminatory evaluation continue to apply. For SLD evaluations, sources of assessment data may include: standardized tests error analysis Criterion-referenced measures curriculum-based assessments pupil work samples interviews systematic observations analysis of the child�s response to previous interventions and analysis of classroom expectations, and curriculum The requirements for a comprehensive, non-discriminatory evaluation continue to apply. For SLD evaluations, sources of assessment data may include: standardized tests error analysis Criterion-referenced measures curriculum-based assessments pupil work samples interviews systematic observations analysis of the child�s response to previous interventions and analysis of classroom expectations, and curriculum

25. Other Process Requirements Each IEP team member certifies in writing whether the evaluation report reflects the member�s conclusion If the report does not reflect the member�s conclusion, the group member submits a separate statement presenting the member�s conclusion PI 11.36 (e) (3) 6/24/2011 25 WDPI This also applies to initial SLD evaluations and reevaluations. There is no change in this requirement from the previous rules. This also applies to initial SLD evaluations and reevaluations. There is no change in this requirement from the previous rules.

26. Referral, Consent and Timelines The LEA shall promptly request parental consent for evaluation if, prior to referral, the student has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided appropriate instruction in general education, delivered by qualified personnel or whenever the student is referred The LEA shall meet the 60 day timeline requirement unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parents and IEP team PI 11.06(b) 6/24/2011 26 WDPI The exception to the 60 day timeline is permitted when the student is first being considered for having the impairment of SLD and the parent and IEP team agree in writing to extend the timeline. If the student is being considered for other impairments and the parent and IEP team agree to extend the timeline in order to collect needed data for SLD consideration, the timeline extension applies to the entire evaluation. The timeline extension option does not apply to reevaluations when the student has been previously found eligible as having SLD. The screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation is not considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services. 34 CFR � 300.302 The use of a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach in a school cannot be used to delay or deny the provision of a full and individual evaluation to a child suspected of having a disability. See OSEP Memorandum 11-07 at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf The exception to the 60 day timeline is permitted when the student is first being considered for having the impairment of SLD and the parent and IEP team agree in writing to extend the timeline. If the student is being considered for other impairments and the parent and IEP team agree to extend the timeline in order to collect needed data for SLD consideration, the timeline extension applies to the entire evaluation. The timeline extension option does not apply to reevaluations when the student has been previously found eligible as having SLD. The screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation is not considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services. 34 CFR � 300.302 The use of a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach in a school cannot be used to delay or deny the provision of a full and individual evaluation to a child suspected of having a disability. See OSEP Memorandum 11-07 at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf

27. Transfer Transfer provisions are consistent with those for all students with disabilities A student determined to be eligible for special education and related services remains eligible upon transfer to another school or LEA until an IEP team determines otherwise. PI 11.06(e)(4) 34 CFR 300.323 (e) and (f) 6/24/2011 27 WDPI The transfer requirements for students previously identified as SLD are no different from the requirements that apply to any students with a disability. If a student transfers from another state and the LEA determines an evaluation is required to determine eligibility under Wisconsin criteria, the new LEA must conduct an initial evaluation. Until the evaluation is conducted, in consultation with the parent, the LEA must provide FAPE, including services comparable to those in the student�s previous IEP. If the student transfers from another Wisconsin school district and the LEA determines an evaluation is required, it would be considered a reevaluation. The transfer requirements for students previously identified as SLD are no different from the requirements that apply to any students with a disability. If a student transfers from another state and the LEA determines an evaluation is required to determine eligibility under Wisconsin criteria, the new LEA must conduct an initial evaluation. Until the evaluation is conducted, in consultation with the parent, the LEA must provide FAPE, including services comparable to those in the student�s previous IEP. If the student transfers from another Wisconsin school district and the LEA determines an evaluation is required, it would be considered a reevaluation.

28. Significant Changes when Determining �Insufficient Progress� Based on Response to Intensive InterventionEffective for All LEAs after November 30, 2013 Only for initial SLD evaluations Criteria for insufficient progress New roles on IEP team Additional observation requirements Additional documentation requirements Parent notification We will now review the changes that go into effect when a school begins to determine insufficient progress using data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention. All Wisconsin schools will be required to use this criterion after November 30, 2013. Until that time, school can choose whether to use insufficient response to intensive intervention or significant discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability to document whether a child meets the insufficient progress criterion. This must be a school wide decision. These changes only apply to evaluations where SLD eligibility is being considered for the first time. We will now review the changes that go into effect when a school begins to determine insufficient progress using data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention. All Wisconsin schools will be required to use this criterion after November 30, 2013. Until that time, school can choose whether to use insufficient response to intensive intervention or significant discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability to document whether a child meets the insufficient progress criterion. This must be a school wide decision. These changes only apply to evaluations where SLD eligibility is being considered for the first time.

29. Insufficient Progress based on Response to Intensive Intervention The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight areas when using a process based on the student�s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions Intensive interventions may be implemented before referral or as part of an evaluation for SLD PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a 6/24/2011 29 WDPI The next slides describe the requirements for determining whether a student meets the insufficient progress criterion when data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention is used. Definitions for the underlined terms are provided. This criterion analyzes the student�s progress in reference to age norms or state grade level standards. These are the same standards that apply to all students at the same grade as the student being evaluated. The department recognizes there are not measurable grade level state standards for all eight areas. When state standards do not exist, the IEP team should use appropriate norms for the area under consideration. The IEP team determines if the interventions and progress data collected meet the requirements set forth in this rule. The definition of intensive intervention is the same as previously discussed (slide #12) The next slides describe the requirements for determining whether a student meets the insufficient progress criterion when data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention is used. Definitions for the underlined terms are provided. This criterion analyzes the student�s progress in reference to age norms or state grade level standards. These are the same standards that apply to all students at the same grade as the student being evaluated. The department recognizes there are not measurable grade level state standards for all eight areas. When state standards do not exist, the IEP team should use appropriate norms for the area under consideration. The IEP team determines if the interventions and progress data collected meet the requirements set forth in this rule. The definition of intensive intervention is the same as previously discussed (slide #12)

30. Definitions Scientific research-based means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs Evidence-based interventions means scientific, research-based interventions with substantial evidence of their effectiveness through multiple outcome evaluations PI 11.02 (12), 20 U. S. C. 7801(37), PI 11.02 (4e) 30 6/24/2011 WDPI

31. Intervention Data to Consider The IEP team shall consider progress monitoring data from at least two intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions, implemented with adequate fidelity and closely aligned to individual student learning needs PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a 31 6/24/2011 WDPI The analysis of the student�s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention uses progress monitoring data collected during the intensive interventions. Data from two interventions are required. The analysis of the student�s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention uses progress monitoring data collected during the intensive interventions. Data from two interventions are required.

32. Definitions Progress monitoring means a scientifically-based practice to assess student response to interventions Adequate fidelity means the intervention has been applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, and provided at least 80 percent of the recommended number of weeks, sessions, and minutes per session PI 11.02 (4e), PI 11.02 (1) 32 6/24/2011 WDPI How IEP teams should document fidelity is a local decision. How IEP teams should document fidelity is a local decision.

33. Data from Intensive Intervention Establish Baseline and Monitor Progress The median score of three probes required to establish a stable baseline data point for progress monitoring Use weekly or more frequent progress monitoring data to evaluate rate of progress during intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a 6/24/2011 33 WDPI Before implementing an intensive intervention, the student�s current level of performance, or baseline, must be established. After the baseline is established, the intervention is implemented with the student and progress monitoring occurs. Before implementing an intensive intervention, the student�s current level of performance, or baseline, must be established. After the baseline is established, the intervention is implemented with the student and progress monitoring occurs.

34. Definitions Probes mean brief, direct measures of specific academic skills, with multiple equal or nearly equal forms, that are sensitive to small changes in performance, and provide reliable and valid measures of performance during intervention Rate of progress during intervention means the slope of the trend line using least squares regression on the baseline and all subsequent data points during each intervention PI 11.02 (9), PI 11.02 (11) 6/24/2011 34 WDPI

35. Data from Intensive Intervention Determining insufficient progress The rate of progress is insufficient when it is� the same or less than that of same-age peers greater than that of peers but will not reach the average range in a reasonable period of time greater than that of peers, but intensity of resources needed to obtain this rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education 6/24/2011 35 WDPI A student�s rate of progress during intensive intervention is insufficient when any of the following are true: Gap isn�t closing: The rate of progress of the referred student is the same or less than that of his or her same-age peers; Gap improving, but too slowly: The referred student�s rate of progress is greater than that of his or her same-age peers but will not result in the student reaching the average range of his or her same-age peer�s achievement for the area in a reasonable period of time; Gap improving but needed general education resources too intense to maintain: The referred student�s rate of progress is greater than that of his or her same-age peers, but the intensity of the resources necessary to obtain this rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education. A student�s rate of progress during intensive intervention is insufficient when any of the following are true: Gap isn�t closing: The rate of progress of the referred student is the same or less than that of his or her same-age peers; Gap improving, but too slowly: The referred student�s rate of progress is greater than that of his or her same-age peers but will not result in the student reaching the average range of his or her same-age peer�s achievement for the area in a reasonable period of time; Gap improving but needed general education resources too intense to maintain: The referred student�s rate of progress is greater than that of his or her same-age peers, but the intensity of the resources necessary to obtain this rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education.

36. Using Data from Intensive Intervention Additional IEP Team Membership Licensed person qualified to interpret data on rate of progress Licensed person who has implemented the intensive interventions with the student Licensed person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic evaluations If the student does not have a general education teacher, one licensed to teach same age students One person can meet multiple roles 11.36(d)(3)(a-d) 6/24/2011 36 WDPI There are also some additional process and documentation requirements when a school begins to use data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to consider if the student meets the Insufficient Progress criterion. In addition to the general requirements for IEP team membership (see s. 115.78 (1m), Stats. , PI 11.24 (2)) the IEP team for students being evaluated for SLD must include all of the following. At least one licensed person qualified to assess data on individual rate of progress using a psychometrically valid and reliable methodology for the purpose of identification of insufficient progress as compared to a national sample of same-age peers. At least one licensed person who has implemented scientific, research-based or evidence-based, intensive interventions with the referred pupil. At least one licensed person who is qualified to conduct individual diagnostic evaluations of children. 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. Note: The student�s general education teacher is already required under the general IEP team membership rules. An IEP team participant can fill multiple roles on the IEP team. These additional membership requirements apply only to initial SLD evaluations. There are also some additional process and documentation requirements when a school begins to use data from a student�s response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to consider if the student meets the Insufficient Progress criterion. In addition to the general requirements for IEP team membership (see s. 115.78 (1m), Stats. , PI 11.24 (2)) the IEP team for students being evaluated for SLD must include all of the following. At least one licensed person qualified to assess data on individual rate of progress using a psychometrically valid and reliable methodology for the purpose of identification of insufficient progress as compared to a national sample of same-age peers. At least one licensed person who has implemented scientific, research-based or evidence-based, intensive interventions with the referred pupil. At least one licensed person who is qualified to conduct individual diagnostic evaluations of children. 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. Note: The student�s general education teacher is already required under the general IEP team membership rules. An IEP team participant can fill multiple roles on the IEP team. These additional membership requirements apply only to initial SLD evaluations.

37. Using Data from Intensive Intervention Additional Observation Requirement The IEP team shall use information from a systematic observation of student behavior and performance in the area (s) of potential specific learning disability during intensive intervention for that area, conducted by an individual not responsible for implementing the interventions PI 11.36 (6)(e)(2)(d) 6/24/2011 37 WDPI Once a school begins using data from a student�s response to intensive, intervention to determine insufficient progress, the IEP team must also consider information from a systematic observation of the student during intensive intervention for each area under consideration. This observation must be conducted by someone other than the individual implementing the intervention with the student. Once a school begins using data from a student�s response to intensive, intervention to determine insufficient progress, the IEP team must also consider information from a systematic observation of the student during intensive intervention for each area under consideration. This observation must be conducted by someone other than the individual implementing the intervention with the student.

38. Using Data from Intensive Intervention Additional Observation Requirement If the student has participated in an RtI process , documentation the parents were notified about The progress monitoring data collected Strategies for increasing the student�s rate of learning including the intensive interventions used The parents� right to request an evaluation 11.36 (6)(f) 6/24/2011 38 WDPI There must also be documentation that the parents were notified about: The type of progress monitoring data collected The strategies used for increasing the student�s learning, including the intensive interventions used to meet SLD evaluation requirements The parent�s right to request a special education evaluation. NOTE: LEAs are already required to, at least annually, inform parents and persons required by law to make referrals about the local educational agency's referral and evaluation procedures, include the parent�s right to request a special education evaluation, as part of the LEAs child find obligation. These additional documentation requirements apply only to initial SLD evaluations. There must also be documentation that the parents were notified about: The type of progress monitoring data collected The strategies used for increasing the student�s learning, including the intensive interventions used to meet SLD evaluation requirements The parent�s right to request a special education evaluation. NOTE: LEAs are already required to, at least annually, inform parents and persons required by law to make referrals about the local educational agency's referral and evaluation procedures, include the parent�s right to request a special education evaluation, as part of the LEAs child find obligation. These additional documentation requirements apply only to initial SLD evaluations.

39. Making the Switch to Using Data from Intensive Intervention All LEAs must use data from intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress as of Nov. 30, 2013 Until Nov. 30, 2013, schools may use either data from intervention or significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress, but not both The transition to using data from intensive intervention must be made at the school level for all students, and applies to all eight areas of achievement 6/24/2011 39 WDPI As mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, as of November 30, 2013, LEAs will be required to use response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine insufficient progress when determining initial eligibility for the impairment of SLD . As of November 30, 2013, LEAs may no longer use significant discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability in SLD eligibility determinations in any school in the LEA. Between now and November 30, 2013 schools may use either method when considering the insufficient progress criterion. The decision of which criterion to use must be made on a school wide basis. Once the decision is made, the same criterion must be used for all students being considered for initial SLD eligibility. As mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, as of November 30, 2013, LEAs will be required to use response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine insufficient progress when determining initial eligibility for the impairment of SLD . As of November 30, 2013, LEAs may no longer use significant discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability in SLD eligibility determinations in any school in the LEA. Between now and November 30, 2013 schools may use either method when considering the insufficient progress criterion. The decision of which criterion to use must be made on a school wide basis. Once the decision is made, the same criterion must be used for all students being considered for initial SLD eligibility.

40. Making the Switch to Using Data from Intensive Intervention When an LEA begins to use data from response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention for any SLD evaluation in a school, the LEA must use this criterion for all SLD evaluations in the school. At least ten days before beginning to implement this criterion, the LEA shall notify the parents of all students enrolled in that school PI 11.36 (6)(c)(2)(a) 6/24/2011 40 WDPI When an LEA decides a school will use data from response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine whether a referred student demonstrates insufficient progress, the LEA must notify all parents of students enrolled in the school of the decision at least 10 days before this criterion begins to be used at the school. When an LEA decides a school will use data from response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention to determine whether a referred student demonstrates insufficient progress, the LEA must notify all parents of students enrolled in the school of the decision at least 10 days before this criterion begins to be used at the school.

41. Resources and Contact Information Guidance on applying SLD eligibility criteria http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/ld.html Guidance on RtI and SLD http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/administrators/sld-rti.html DPI Contact Special Education Team dpisped@dpi.wi.gov or (608) 266-1781 6/24/2011 41 WDPI The department is currently developing additional guidance to help educators and parents understand the new rules and how they should be implemented. This will include an new SLD evaluation technical assistance guide, updated SLD criteria checklists and responses to frequently asked questions about the rules. The field will be notified when additional guidance is available. Questions about the SLD rules should be directed to the Special Education Team. Thank-you!The department is currently developing additional guidance to help educators and parents understand the new rules and how they should be implemented. This will include an new SLD evaluation technical assistance guide, updated SLD criteria checklists and responses to frequently asked questions about the rules. The field will be notified when additional guidance is available. Questions about the SLD rules should be directed to the Special Education Team. Thank-you!