Act 20: Students with IEPs

Act 20 and Child Find: Providing the Right Levels of Support for Young Readers

Every Wisconsin school district and independent charter school strives to ensure that each child is a proficient reader. Wisconsin’s Framework for Equitable Multi-Level Systems of Support (EMLSS) ensures each child benefits from high quality universal instruction and a continuum of supports. 2023 Wisconsin Act 20 (Act 20) supports schools and districts in strengthening their EMLSS for reading in grades 4K-3. Additionally, for students with disabilities, special education services and supports can address disability-related needs.

With an abundance of data available about our young readers - especially those who are struggling most - when do concerns about a student’s reading development necessitate a special education referral? This document provides considerations for determining when a special education referral may be the next step in a student’s educational programming related to early literacy development.

The information about Act 20 and child find as part of IDEA included in this document is abbreviated. For more information, please visit:

Act 20: www.dpi.wi.gov/wi-reads

Child Find in Early Childhood: https://dpi.wi.gov/sped/early-childhood/child-find

Equitable Multi-Level Systems of Support: www.dpi.wi.gov/emlss

Eligibility Criteria for Specific Learning Disability: https://dpi.wi.gov/sped/program/specific-learning-disabilities

What are Act 20 and Child Find?

Act 20 is a law created to ensure each child attending a public school (including independent charter schools) is able to read proficiently by the end of 3rd grade. To achieve this goal, Act 20 requires schools to provide high quality, science-based early literacy instruction and interventions and to monitor early literacy skill development for all students in grades 5K-3. Act 20 includes the following requirements for early literacy curriculum, instruction, and assessment:

• universal science-based early literacy instruction that includes phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, writing, vocabulary, oral language, background knowledge, fluency, and reading comprehension and does not include three-part cueing, as defined in Act 20;universal screening of early literacy skills for all students in grades 4K-3;
• diagnostic assessment of early literacy skills for students in 5K through grade 3 who perform below the 25th percentile on the early literacy screening;
• the provision of a Personal Reading Plan for students who score below the 25th percentile on the screener that includes intervention and weekly progress monitoring for students who perform below the 25th percentile on the early literacy screening; and
• communication with parents and caregivers regarding early literacy curriculum, instruction, intervention, and assessment.

Act 20 is not designed to be a pathway to special education eligibility or services. Instead, Act 20 utilizes science-based early literacy instruction, screening, and, as needed, reading intervention to ensure third grade proficiency.

At the same time, public school districts and independent charter schools have an obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) to locate, identify, and evaluate children with disabilities who are in need of special education services. This is commonly referred to as Child Find. Child Find covers all areas of disability that may impact a student’s ability to access, engage, and make progress in the general education curriculum. Child Find provisions under the IDEA apply to all children ages 3-21 and include:

A continuous process of public awareness activities, screening, and evaluation of students suspected of having disabilities as defined by the IDEA.

Requirements for certain individuals (including but not limited to physicians, nurses, and social workers) to make written referrals for special education evaluations if they suspect a child may have a disability under the IDEA.

Questions to Discuss

Information about the student’s experiences with their family, in their communities, and at school are important. At school, the overall effectiveness of the equitable multilevel systems of support (EMLSS) can greatly impact a student’s access, engagement, and progress in the general education curriculum. For example, if universal early literacy instruction is effective for 80% or more of students, we can expect that a student will benefit from universal instruction. Further, screening results can tell us how curriculum and instruction are serving students from marginalized groups. However, regardless of the efficacy of the EMLSS, there will be students who demonstrate characteristics that require the local education agency (LEA) to make a referral for a special education evaluation.

These questions can assist teams in determining whether or not to refer an individual student for a special education evaluation due to concerns with early literacy development. Questions to consider, include:

Universal Early Literacy Curriculum and Instruction

• What does universal literacy instruction currently look like for the student (who, when, how much, where)?
• Historically, how has the student responded to universal instruction and intervention?
• How is the student responding to each area of early literacy instruction (such as reading foundational skills, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, or writing) in comparison to other areas of universal instruction?
• In what ways is universal early literacy instruction aligned with the student’s cultural and linguistic background?

Screening Results

• How does the student’s performance on the current screener compare to previous screeners?
• Are there other data points that support the screening results (e.g., progress monitoring, classroom assessments)?

Diagnostic Assessment Results

• How does the student’s performance on the most recent diagnostic assessment compare to previous diagnostic assessments?
• How does the diagnostic assessment profile compare to the developmental literacy expectations for the student’s age?
• How do other data points compare to the results of the diagnostic reading assessment?

Personal Reading Plan and Progress Monitoring

• How does the personal reading plan attend to motivation and engagement? When intensifying the intervention, in what ways do motivation and engagement need to be considered?
• In what ways are current interventions aligned with the student’s cultural and linguistic background?
• What steps have been taken to connect intervention to universal instruction? Would being more explicit about this connection continue to accelerate the student’s rate of progress?
• Which adults are teaching the child? How are they collaborating with each other to support the student? (including classroom teachers, interventionists, special education teachers, and English language teachers)

Special Considerations

Parent or teacher request for diagnostic assessment due to characteristics of dyslexia

Act 20 requires that a district have a process through which a parent or teacher can request a diagnostic assessment. Under Act 20 a diagnostic assessment measures all of the following: phonemic awareness, decoding skills, alphabet knowledge, letter sound knowledge, oral vocabulary, rapid naming, phonological awareness, word recognition, spelling, vocabulary, listening comprehension, and, when developmentally appropriate for the student, oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. In addition, the student’s family must have an opportunity to complete a family history survey.

A parent or teacher request for a diagnostic assessment is not a referral for special education evaluation, and does not require a special education evaluation, It does not diagnose a specific type of reading disability. The diagnostic assessment is intended to identify a student’s strengths and needs related to reading in order to design instruction to accelerate the student’s progress.

A parent or teacher who suspects the student has characteristics of dyslexia can request a diagnostic assessment. Per Act 20, the school must fulfill the request within 20 days. Depending on the results of the diagnostic reading assessment, the team can use the questions above to determine any of the following courses of action.

• Continue instruction as it is currently being implemented for the child
• Develop and implement a personal reading plan
• Make a referral for a comprehensive special education evaluation if an LEA staff member suspects the student may have a disability under the IDEA

Data from Progress Monitoring

Progress monitoring data that is collected as part of implementing a personal reading plan is critical to determining whether or not the student is adequately responding to early literacy instruction and intervention. This data may also indicate that a referral for a special education evaluation should be made. In Wisconsin, the determination of whether or not a child has a specific learning disability (SLD) requires the collection and analysis of progress monitoring data to measure a child’s response to scientific research based interventions. Interventions and progress monitoring can occur before or after the special education referral. LEAs should have local policies and procedures in place to determine how to best align intervention and progress monitoring practices that meet the requirements of both Act 20 and the PI 11 Specific Learning Disabilities rule. If a special education referral is being made and specific learning disability (SLD) is being considered as a disability area, the following must occur:

• The student is engaged in two scientific research-based or evidence-based interventions that match the student’s area(s) of need
• Progress monitoring data must be collected weekly with a tool that meets the requirements in the SLD eligibility criteria
• A team must consider when to intensify intervention and progress monitoring to meet the requirements of the SLD eligibility criteria, ensuring that a student is benefitting from a “just right” level of support.

Suggested Next Steps for Your System

Convene a team to carefully consider how the ideas in this guidance apply in your local contexts. Areas for conversation include:

• Document local decision making processes including the creation of flowcharts or decisions trees to clearly summarize the process
• Articulate and revise your strategic assessment system, focusing on early reading data and related decision rules
• Practice applying local processes and decision rules across several student scenarios
• Review local universal instruction and continuum of support for early literacy to ensure it includes explicit and systematic instruction in all areas of science-based early literacy instruction included in Act 20

Return to the top

Assessment

For general information about screening and diagnostic early literacy assessment required by Act 20 or Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016 visit this link.

If a student already has Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals in the area of reading, will they still need to participate in early literacy screenings required by Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016?

Act 20 requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to administer a state-wide fundamental skills screening (4K) or universal reading screening (5K through grade 3). All students with disabilities must be included in the state-wide early literacy screening. There are no exceptions, and an alternate screener is not available. Data from the state-wide early literacy screening should be considered by the IEP team in developing the student’s IEP. However, IEP teams are not prohibited and may be required to conduct assessments outside of the student’s age or grade level if they believe such assessments will provide data that will assist in the development of the student’s IEP.

11/4/24 - Updated I-7: District-Wide Assessment

Return to the top

Advancing to Diagnostic Assessment in 5K through grade 3

Note - Diagnostic assessment and personal reading plans are not required in 4K. Therefore, all students in 4K must complete the screener and are allowed all accommodations and modifications included in their IEP.

In rare situations an IEP team may make the determination to bypass the early literacy screening required in Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016 and proceed to the diagnostic assessment. This would only be in situations where an IEP team determines that the effects of a student's disability will prevent them from obtaining a valid assessment result. In these circumstances, that student would be considered to be “at risk” as a result of the universal screening assessment defined as scoring “below the 25th percentile on a universal screening assessment” (Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016(1)(a)).

Thus, IEP teams must first understand what aimswebPlus measures are required at each grade, what each measure entails, and whether the effects of the student’s disability will invalidate screening results. See the chart for information about which subtests are required and which are used to determine risk.

Visit the Pearson/Wisconsin website and select “Content” from the right side menu to find an assessment matrix for aimswebPlus in Wisconsin.

The chart below describes the aimswebPlus measures required in 5K through grade 3.

* Measure is used to determine risk status.

When the effects of a student’s disability make early literacy screening results invalid and the IEP team agrees to advance to diagnostic assessment, what should be recorded in aimswebPlus?

11/4/24 - Answer coming soon

What does my school or district report to DPI about students’ screener performance?

The school or district must report the number of students who are at risk (an unduplicated annual count). The school does not have to report test participation rates and neither test participation or student screener performance are included on school report cards or used for determining federal identifications for IDEA or ESSA. The school report does have to include the number of students proficient in reading at the end of grade three; this will be the number of students proficient on the grade 3 statewide summative reading assessment (grade 3 Wisconsin Forward reading subscore or score from Dynamic Learning Maps).

Districts have to annually report the names of early literacy diagnostic assessments used in their district (5K through grade 3) and the number of students who began receiving intervention by grade level, the number of students who received interventions under a personal reading plan, and the number of students who exited interventions by grade.

What if the effects of a student’s disability prevent them from obtaining a valid screening result but their IEP team does not have concerns regarding their early literacy skills? For example: What if a student has a stutter that greatly impacts their oral reading fluency, but other assessments indicate grade level literacy skills?

The IEP team for a student may move on to conducting diagnostic reading assessments if it is determined they are not able to obtain valid and reliable results from the screener. The team should consider how to administer diagnostic reading assessment that obtains valid and reliable results and creates an accurate picture of the student’s early literacy skills. If the diagnostic reading assessment data indicates a student does not have a need for a personal reading plan, DPI recommends the following:

• having local decision rules and policies about how to proceed when a student’s diagnostic assessment does not confirm the level of risk indicated by the screener;
• involving families and caregivers as meaningful partners in understanding a student’s reading ability and the need for a personal reading plan;
• considering the personal reading plan as one part of a continuum of supports for reading; matching the intensity of supports in universal instruction, reading intervention, and/or progress monitoring with a student’s level of need;
• and articulating all school or district policies in the local early literacy remediation plan (including processes and procedures used when a student’s screener performance does not match information from diagnostic assessment).

If diagnostic assessment and other data do not indicate a need for a personal reading plan, a district could proceed in any of the following ways; this list is not exhaustive:

• write a personal reading plan focused on goals and benchmarks relevant to universal instruction and including weekly progress monitoring;
• with the agreement of parents/caregivers and conclusive data, provide reading supports (including intervention and progress monitoring) at a less intensive level than what is required in the personal reading plan;
• with the agreement of parents/caregivers and conclusive data, create a plan for progress
• monitoring and reviewing and sharing of data in order to ensure the student is meeting expectations; or
• with the agreement of parents/caregivers and conclusive data, do not proceed with a personal reading plan.

Where must an IEP team document their decision to advance the student directly to the diagnostic assessment?

• The IEP team must document the discussion and the results of the discussion on the I-4 Form, Present Level
• In addition, the I-7 should also contain documentation that the student will not participate in the screener per the IEP team’s decision and will advance to the diagnostic assessment.

See Sample Special Education forms for more information.  

What might diagnostic assessment include?

Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016 requires that diagnostic reading assessment(s)be administered to students who score below the 25th percentile on the screener, which Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016(1)(a) refers to as at-risk. Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016 does not include a provision to opt students out of the diagnostic reading assessment.

In rare cases, an IEP team may determine, based on the effects of the student’s disability, that the results of the grade-level reading screener would not be valid (e.g., a first grade student does not use verbal speech and therefore an oral reading fluency measure cannot be obtained). In such cases, the student is considered "at risk", and the IEP team may decide to advance the student to the diagnostic reading assessment without screening. When this determination is made, the team should give careful consideration to the selection of diagnostic assessment measures.

LEA's have flexibility in selecting diagnostic assessments. Many LEAs may already use district-wide assessments appropriate for the purposes discussed in this document (as described in the district’s early literacy remediation plan). They are not required to use assessments from the list approved by DPI, nor are they required to use a single diagnostic assessment to address all areas. However, the suite of diagnostic reading assessments used within the district must include assessments that meet the following requirements outlined in Act 20:

• include at least one assessment for each of the following specific literacy subskills enumerated in Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016: phonemic awareness, decoding skills, alphabet knowledge, letter sound knowledge, oral vocabulary, rapid naming, phonological awareness, word recognition, spelling, vocabulary, listening comprehension, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension;
• meet the technical specifications in Act 20 (a sensitivity rate of 70%, a specificity rate of at least 80%); and
• include a growth measure.

After engaging in diagnostic assessment in every early literacy sub skill listed in Wis. Stat. §§ 118.016, expert educators can use existing data about the student’s early literacy development to determine which areas of diagnostic assessment to investigate further.

The information gathered from the diagnostic reading assessment is intended to assist with development of a personal reading plan. Therefore, reading assessment should include measures that provide accurate, actionable information about a student's reading skills and instructional needs. Act 20 does not prohibit the consideration of additional reading assessment measures not described above. The IEP team may consider other measures, matched to the student's disability related needs, that will provide additional information to inform instructional programming (e.g., Braille reading readiness assessments, fingerspelling word manipulation tasks, picture vocabulary assessments, picture or signed spelling assessment stimuli, word recognition responses provided via AAC, English syntax measures using signed stimuli.)

How should the team proceed with the personalized reading plan?

An IEP team may determine if the personal reading plan should be included in IEP.

IEP teams should follow the same process following the diagnostic requirements. See: (Act 20: Students with IEPs | Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction).

If the progress monitoring tool identified in Act 20 (e.g. oral reading fluency for grades 1-3) will not provide valid and reliable data based on the effects of a student’s disability, how do we monitor student progress?

If the effects of the student’s disability make nonword, nonsense word, phoneme segmentation, or oral reading fluency assessments invalid or unreliable for monitoring progress, the PRP could indicate a more appropriate tool or tools to demonstrate student progress in the skills identified in the PRP goals and benchmarks. The student’s current IEP, and how their current reading goals are being progress monitored may be used as a guide for identifying appropriate progress monitoring tools. Consideration of the appropriateness of a given tool should take into account both the effects of the student’s disability and the student's strengths.Tools used for progress monitoring should be highly technically adequate and progress monitoring should be systematic and rigorous. If the progress monitoring meets these standards and is delivered weekly as described in the personal reading plan, you are meeting Act 20 requirements.

Return to the top

Personal Reading Plan (PRP)

Does a Personal Reading Plan (PRP) have to be developed for a student who has an IEP with reading goals?

If the student has scored below the 25th percentile on the reading readiness screener, the student must receive a PRP.

If a student is currently receiving specially designed instruction in reading, the IEP team may want to consider incorporating the PRP into the IEP. If the PRP is not incorporated into the IEP, the district must ensure that the PRP is consistent with the student’s IEP and does not reference special education services that are not incorporated within the IEP, or state the services differently than what is required by the IEP. The student’s IEP would be the controlling document, as special education services must be determined through the IEP team process..

Can a Personal Reading Plan (PRP) be part of an IEP? If so, what information from the PRP needs to be included in the IEP?

Nothing under IDEA would prohibit an IEP team from incorporating the PRP into the IEP. If the PRP is included in the IEP the following components must be documented in the IEP:

1. The student’s specific early literacy skill deficiencies, as identified by the applicable assessment.
2. Goals and benchmarks for the student's progress toward grade-level literacy skills.
3. How the student's progress will be monitored.
4. A description of the interventions and any additional instructional services that will be provided to the student l to address the student's early literacy skill deficiencies.
5. The programming using science-based early reading instruction, as defined in Wis. Stat. §§118.015(1c) (b), that the student’s 's teacher will use to provide reading instruction to the student,addressing the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
6. Strategies the student's parent is encouraged to use to help the pupil achieve grade-level literacy skills.
7. Any additional services available and appropriate to accelerate the student's early literacy skill development.

Below is a table detailing the Personal Reading Plan components and where an IEP team may wish to document those components when incorporating a PRP into an IEP.

When should a team consider adding the personal reading plan to the IEP?

Act 20 is a general education law, therefore personal reading plans created under the Act usually fall within the scope of general education practice. Nothing under the IDEA prohibits including the elements of a personal reading plan in an IEP, however local teams should give careful consideration to the appropriateness of doing so.

If a student requires specially designed instruction in reading, the IEP team can determine if the PRP should be incorporated into the IEP. Considerations may include:

• What constitutes general education versus specially designed instruction(SDI)? When instruction is going above and beyond what is being provided in general education reading intervention(e.g., the instruction begins to look much different in terms of frequency, intensity, duration) it might be considered SDI and should be incorporated into the IEP.
• The least restrictive environment. If supplementary reading instruction is starting to look like specially designed instruction (significantly different from what grade level peers are receiving (e.g., removal from gen ed classroom or from non-disabled peers) it should be incorporated into the IEP. Teachers should be mindful that they are not unnecessarily removing students from peers.
• The child’s disability related needs. If the IEP team identifies disability related needs (DRNs) related to reading then the personal reading plan and IEP should be aligned and consistent to address the root cause of the reading related DRNs.
• The root cause. If the student does not require specially designed instruction in reading, there may be other factors impacting the student's ability to access reading instruction.

Who is responsible for creating and implementing the Personal Reading Plan (PRP) for a student with an IEP?

DPI recommends taking a collaborative approach and including special education teachers as one member of a team tasked with creating personal reading plans. Educators who teach 5K-grade 3 reading, including reading teachers and special education teachers may create and implement the PRP for a student with an IEP. Interventions should be provided by the people in a district who are most qualified to deliver them. Districts should not assume that interventions for all students with IEPs will be provided by special education teachers. Students with IEPs should have access to reading teachers, reading specialists, and reading interventionists, just like any other student in the district.

If a student’s PRP is part of their IEP, then the instruction must be delivered by a licensed educator who can provide specially designed instruction. (For additional information, see What Is Specially Designed Instruction and Who Can Provide It?) In addition, special education services must be determined by the IEP team, and cannot be determined through the development of a personal reading plan that is outside of an IEP team meeting.

Can a Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP) implement a PRP?

No, while speech-language pathologists address many areas of literacy that impact reading, they are not licensed to teach reading, Disability Related Need Affecting Reading for Students Eligible for an IEP with a Speech and Language Impairment. Speech-Language Pathologists have the background and unique skills to address vocabulary, language structures, and verbal reasoning related to reading comprehension in addition to phonological awareness related to word recognition.

If the Personal Reading Plan (PRP) is incorporated into an IEP, how should Local Educational Agencies (e.g. school districts) document parental acknowledgment of the plan?

Act 20 requires that the school district or independent charter school provide a copy of the PRP to the student’s parent and obtain a copy of the PRP signed by the student’s parent. Parental consent or signature is not required before implementing a PRP.

How often must progress be monitored and when must reports of the student’s progress be provided to parents if a PRP is incorporated into an IEP?

Act 20 requires that student progress is monitored weekly using the method described in the PRP. After providing interventions described in the PRP for 10 weeks, schools must notify parents of the students progress.

If a PRP is incorporated into an IEP, the procedures for measuring the student’s progress toward meeting the annual goal and information about when reports about the student’s progress toward meeting the annual goal will be provided to parents must meet the requirements of Act 20.

Return to the top

Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

How do we support students who are deaf and hard of hearing if we are unable to use three-cueing in the core reading curriculum?

Research has shown that children who are deaf and hard of hearing begin formal literacy instruction with a weaker foundation in emergent literacy skills (Werfel, Reynolds, Fitton, 2022). Specifically, preschool children who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind, use sign language and/or use amplification for spoken language, and often need specialized instruction and supports in the areas of phonological awareness, phonological memory, and conceptual print knowledge. Students who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind do not receive the same benefit of incidental learning throughout the day as their hearing peers when developing early literacy skills. The general reading curriculum alone is not always effective for students who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind and developing literacy skills, especially those with severe to profound hearing loss. In addition, an itinerant model of service delivery from a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing may not fully address the student’s needs.

IEP teams may consider a supplemental program to support development of literacy skills in addition to the current reading curriculum utilized in the district (e.g., Bedrock Literacy Curriculum, the Fairview Program, Failure Free Reading, Fingerspelling Our Way to Reading, See the Sound-Visual Phonics, or Leveled Literacy Intervention). IEP teams should then include documentation in the IEP regarding why the supplemental program is indicated. Under limited circumstances, this could include three-cueing if determined by the IEP team as necessary to address the student’s disability-related needs.Note that three-cueing instruction cannot be included in educator preparation programs; educators using three-cueing instruction may require training outside of what was included outside of an educator preparation program.

Return to the top