Wisconsin DPI EL Policy Handbook — EL Determination and MIP Notes

EL Status Determination: Core Evidence and the Role of Screener

English Learner (EL) status determinations rely primarily on the ELP Screener as the core measure of English proficiency. Districts are encouraged to gather supplemental evidence of student language use prior to making an EL determination. These supplemental observations are not intended to override definitive screener results but serve to provide additional evidence for students on the border of English proficiency. The Multiple Indicator Protocol (MIP), described in Chapter 15, is the process used to collect and assess this supplemental information. The MIP has two variants: a classroom observation protocol and a Language Artifact Portfolio. Importantly, the MIP cannot override a definitive ELP assessment for a student, since a standardized, unbiased measure of English proficiency must be the core of ELP decisions. In the case of non-definitive, borderline scores, however, the MIP may be used as supplemental information to support a final EL determination. The following scores are eligible to be assessed with a MIP for a final ELP determination: ELP Screener Borderline Proficient Scores. The table of eligible combinations (Screener, Grade, and Score range) indicates that: for Kindergarten, the screener used is W-APT; for High Kindergarten, the model is MODEL with a score range of $5.0-5.5$; and for Grades 1–12, the screener used is WIDA Screener with a score range of $4.0-4.9$. For students scoring at these levels, MIP observations supplement screener results to accurately place the student. Chapter 15—Multiple Indicator Protocol details how to weigh this supplemental evidence to reach a final proficiency determination. This context sits within Chapter 3—Final Determination of EL Status, as part of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) policy guidance on serving English Learners. The Wisconsin DPI EL Policy Handbook, including these chapters, is accessible at the DPI EL policy site. The cited legal references include Rios v. Read and Cintron v. Brentwood, and this material appears in the Wisconsin DPI EL Policy Handbook.

The MIP: Variants and How They Work

The MIP comprises two variants intended to capture non-screener evidence: a classroom observation protocol and a Language Artifact Portfolio. The purpose of these variants is to gather observations of how a student uses language in authentic contexts and to collect language artifacts that demonstrate language versatility and development. The MIP is only involved when screener results are non-definitive or borderline; it cannot override a definitive ELP assessment. In summary, MIP serves as supplementary information when screener results are inconclusive, helping districts make a more informed final EL determination without replacing standardized measures.

Eligibility for MIP: Borderline Screener Scores and Applicable Screens

Eligible cases for applying MIP are those with ELP Screener Borderline Proficient scores. The district guidance specifies the following mappings for which MIP observations may supplement screener results:

• Kindergarten: W-APT is used for the screener, with eligibility for MIP applying to borderline results.
• High Kindergarten: MODEL with a score range of $5.0-5.5$ is used for the screener, and borderline results may be supplemented by MIP.
• Grades 1–12: WIDA Screener with a score range of $4.0-4.9$ is used for the screener, and borderline results may be supplemented by MIP.

When a student’s screener score falls into these borderline/proficient ranges, MIP observations provide supplemental evidence to inform the final EL determination. Chapter 15 details the framework for weighing this evidence to arrive at a proficiency decision.

Final Determination of EL Status and Policy Context

This material appears in Chapter 3 of the DPI’s EL Policy Handbook, which provides statewide guidance on identifying and supporting English Learners. The handbook emphasizes that the official determination rests on a standardized, unbiased measure of English proficiency (the ELP screener) and that MIP is a supplemental source of evidence only when the screener results are not definitive. The DPI EL Policy Handbook is publicly available, and the document references court cases such as Rios v. Read and Cintron v. Brentwood as part of its policy background. This chapter (Chapter 3) sits within the larger framework of the DPI policy handbook, which outlines the identification process, notification requirements, and program options for English Learners.

EL Status Categories and Notification Timeline

Students who score below the proficient threshold on the screener are considered ELs and receive an ELP code in the district SIS that corresponds to their screener score. Students who score above the proficient threshold are non-ELs and receive ELP code $7$ (Never EL). The timing for determination and notification is defined as follows: from the first day of enrollment, districts have $30$ calendar days to determine the EL status of new students. Districts must notify parents in a timely fashion of this determination. Districts have $30$ days from the start of the school year to notify parents of ELs enrolled prior to or at the start of the school year. For students enrolling mid-year, districts have $2$ weeks to notify parents once an EL determination has been made. When communicating with families, districts must translate the information into the family’s home language; if a written translation is not available, oral interpretation should be provided.

If a student is determined to be an EL, the notification must include specific content: (1) the process of identification, the assessments, data, and/or observations used to make the determination, including the student’s ELP score and a summary of any MIP observations; (2) what the EL status means and what services the student is eligible for; (3) the specific Language Instruction Educational Plans (LIEPs) available in the district for the student’s age, the method of instruction in those LIEPs, and how they differ in content, instruction goals, and use of English and the native language; (4) how the programs can meet the student’s educational strengths and needs and help the student learn English and achieve age-appropriate standards; (5) the exit requirements for such programs, the expected rate of transition into general education, and the expected rate of graduation (where applicable); (6) the guarantee to offer programming in the least restrictive environment and to transition the student to general education when appropriate; and (7) for students with disabilities, how the program will meet IEP objectives.” The notification must also cover parental rights and options, including resources to decline enrollment or choose among alternative programs, and the annual assessment requirement for English language proficiency until the student reaches proficiency, regardless of parental consent. The notification should also declare that EL status is confidential within school data systems.

Parental Rights, Language Access, and Program Transparency

The notices include detailed information about parental/guardian rights and the availability of language services. The content outlines: (a) the right to remove a child from an LIEP upon request, (b) options to decline enrollment or choose another program if available, and (c) assistance in selecting among multiple LIEPs if more than one is offered. It also specifies allowable language services and accommodations should the parent accept or decline language support, the district’s obligation to support academic needs regardless of parental choice, and the ongoing annual assessment requirement for ELP until proficiency is achieved. Finally, the notification clarifies that the EL status is confidential in data collection and notification.

Required Data and Reporting for ELs in the SIS

To support ESEA reporting and a consistent statewide EL entry procedure, districts must maintain EL-related data, including: HLS results for every student (Screen/Do not Screen determination); for students identified as needing ELP screening, the ELP screener used, date of screener administration, screener result coded as ELP (values $1-5, 7$), and date of parental notification of screener administration; for students with a screener result of ELP (1-5), the date of parental notification of the student’s EL status, informed parental consent for or denial of service, parental choice of language for communications, the student’s native language code, and the LIEP program type. This data collection aligns with Chapter 3—Making an EL Determination and references to the LIEP section (Chapter 8) for programming details. The ISO 639-2 language code standard is used for language identification, with valid language codes being ISO 639-2 Type T.

District Notification Letters: Structure, Content, and Process

An example District Notification Letter illustrates how districts may present information to families. It includes two cover letters (Initial Placement and Continuation) and a Program Information section. The initial letter explains the child’s language background, the language proficiency test used (K W-APT, WIDA MODEL, or WIDA Screener), the child’s ELP level, and what that means for eligibility for English Learner Services. It confirms that ACCESS for ELLs will be administered annually and notes confidentiality. It invites parents to review Language Education programs and states that they can request more information if needed. The continuation letter reiterates that the child remains eligible for English Language Services until the ELP result reaches 5.0 or higher and explains ongoing supports and confidentiality. The Program Information section describes two district programs (a transitional Spanish bilingual program and an ESL-integrated content-based program), outlines contact information for changing or declining participation, and explains that parents may change or opt out of programs at any time.

Language Education Program Descriptions

Our district offers two language education programs: a transitional Spanish bilingual program and an ESL integrated content-based program. The transitional Spanish bilingual program is available at a designated school and focuses on maintaining Spanish while helping students acquire English. It is labeled transitional because students will transition out as they grow older and become more fluent in English. Up to the end of the 2nd grade, about $25\%$ of classes are conducted in Spanish. A bilingual teacher provides Spanish-language reading instruction to a small group for at least $30$ minutes per day, while the remainder of the day involves instruction in Spanish for math, social studies, and science alongside English-speaking classmates. The bilingual teacher supports English acquisition by teaching in Spanish and then gradually shifting to English-dominant instruction with increasing English proficiency. After the 2nd grade, students join classes led by English-speaking teachers and other students; the bilingual teacher provides ongoing supports. Once a student reaches an ELP level of $3.0$ or higher on the ACCESS for ELLs, Spanish-language supports cease, and English-only instruction continues, with continued vocabulary development and additional time for testing accommodations. A trained language teacher is present in classrooms to provide ongoing support.

The ESL integrated content-based program aims to develop English proficiency while delivering the same curriculum as peers. All classes are taught in English, with a mix of English learners and native speakers. The program uses explicit, scaffolded instruction in small segments, with vocabulary supports and visual aids (charts, videos, graphic organizers). In some classes, two teachers may be present to support learners who are still developing English. As the student becomes more proficient, reliance on specialized supports decreases, and students progress toward independent learning. Proficiency is defined as achieving a score of $5.0$ or higher on the ACCESS for ELLs. By the end of 3rd grade, about half of students are proficient; by the end of 7th grade, almost all students are proficient. When proficiency is achieved, formal supports may be reduced, although ongoing program support remains available as needed to maintain and advance English proficiency.

EL Entry Process: Flow and Decision Points

The EL Entry Process is a sequential flow detailed in Page 11 of the DPI document. All students complete a Home Language Survey (HLS) on first enrollment in a district, which indicates whether the student is Non-EL. If identified by HLS for screening, districts administer an ELP Screener. If the screener indicates the student is not proficient, the student is classified as EL (ELP code determined by the screener). If the screener indicates proficiency, the student is coded as ELP 7 (Never EL). If the screener indicates a borderline result, the district administers a Multiple Indicator Protocol (MIP). The final ELP code for SIS is based on either the screener results or MIP results. If the MIP indicates Non-EL, the student remains Non-EL; if MIP indicates EL, the student is classified as EL. This structured flow ensures a standardized approach to entry decisions and aligns with the overall EL determination framework described in Chapter 3.

Policy Version, Revisions, and Updates

The DPI policy handbook documents its revision history and notes modifications. Version 0.9 represents the initial release (4/25/2018); 1.0 updates the proficient scores and parent notification letters (8/15/2018); 1.1 includes copyedits (7/1/2019); 1.2 reflects major changes to the parent notification letter and copyedits (1/31/2020). DPI recommends checking for updates to these policies at least annually by visiting the DPI English Learners site for the most current version.

Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance

• Compliance with the ESEA and district reporting requirements ensures consistent identification, notification, and programming for ELs, while safeguarding parental rights and ensuring access to language services. The alignment with legal standards (e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 6312) and the inclusion of IEP considerations show a commitment to equitable access for students with disabilities.
• The emphasis on least restrictive environment (LRE) reinforces the principle that EL services should enable access to general education while providing necessary language support.
• The dual-program option (transitional bilingual and ESL-integrated) reflects a pragmatic approach to bilingual development: supporting home language maintenance where appropriate while ensuring English proficiency and academic progress.
• The process foregrounds parental engagement, language access, and confidentiality, highlighting ethical commitments to transparent communication and data protection.
• The MIP component acknowledges the value of multiple sources of evidence when screening results are borderline, while preserving the integrity of standardized measures as the core determinant.
• The documentation and data requirements (SIS coding, notification content, and LIEP tracking) support accountability, monitoring, and continuous improvement in EL programming.

Key Formulas, Numbers, and Codes (LaTeX)

• Timelines: $30$ days for initial EL determination; $30$ days for fall notifications; $2$ weeks for mid-year determinations.
• ELP scores and thresholds: ELP scores are on a scale including values such as $1-5$, with $7$ representing Never EL.
• Proficiency target: $5.0$ or higher on the ACCESS for ELLs to be considered proficient; prior to attainment, ongoing supports and testing occur annually.
• Program language thresholds: transitional bilingual program uses approximately $25\%$ Spanish instruction through the end of 2nd grade; English-only instruction follows thereafter, with ongoing supports until proficiency is reached.
• Language code reference: valid language codes follow ISO 639-2 (Language codes are cited as ISO 639-2 type T; see the LIEP materials for code references).

Cross-References and Practical Takeaways

• MIP is a targeted tool for borderline cases, with two variants to capture classroom language use and artifacts; it cannot override a definitive screener result.
• The EL determination process is codified in Chapter 3, while Chapter 15 details MIP procedures, and Chapter 8 covers LIEP programming. Districts should consult these chapters to implement the processes correctly.
• Notification letters and district communications must be translated or interpreted in the family’s home language, with a clear explanation of EL services, exit requirements, and parental rights.
• Districts should maintain a complete EL data profile in the SIS, including screening results, MIP summaries, parental notifications, consent/denial decisions, language preferences, and LIEP types, to support reporting under ESEA and DPI guidance.

Summary of Key Points

• Screener results form the core of EL determinations; MIP serves as supplementary evidence for borderline cases and cannot override definitive screener outputs.
• Eligible MIP uses specific screener configurations and score ranges, varying by grade level (Kindergarten, High Kindergarten, Grades 1–12).
• Determinations must be communicated to families within defined timelines, with translation/interpreting support when needed, and must include detailed information about the process, ELP score, MIP observations, and program options.
• EL coding in the SIS (ELP codes 1–5, 7) corresponds to screener and MIP outcomes; the district must document all steps, notifications, consents, and program selections.
• Districts offer two language education programs (transitional Spanish bilingual and ESL integrated content-based) with explicit design features, exit criteria, and ongoing supports, and students reach English proficiency through structured progress.
• The EL entry process follows a clear sequence: HLS screening, ELP screener where indicated, and, if borderline, MIP to finalize the EL determination.
• Policy updates and revisions are tracked in the DPI EL Policy Handbook, with annual checks recommended to stay current with requirements.