KETTLE MORAINE (KM) SCHOOL DISTRICT: Ryan Meyer

About Kettle Moraine School District  Kettle Moraine School District is located in Waukesha County.  Kettle Moraine has 5 elementary schools, 1 middle school, and 4 high schools.  1 elementary school and 3 high schools are charter schools.  During the school year there were 4196 students and 12.8% of the students were students with a disability.  Vision: Learning without boundaries  Purpose: To cultivate academic excellence, citizenship, and personal development.

Indicator 1: Graduation Indicator 2: Dropout  Percent of students with disabilities graduating from high school with a regular diploma.  KM:81.08%.  State:68.7%  Target:At or above 85%  The percent of students with disabilities dropping out of grades  KM: Not reported due to the data being redacted for privacy reasons.  State: 1.75%  Target: At or below 1.9%

Indicator 3: Assessment  Did district meet the state’s Annual Measurement Objectives (AMO) targets for student with disabilities in Reading and Math?  Reading: YesState: 77.57% of students met AMO Target: 90% of districts should meet AMO  Math: YesState 71.7% of districts met AMO Target: 90% of districts should meet AMO

Indicator 3: Assessment: Participation rate of students with disabilities on regular or alternative statewide assessment Reading GradeKMStateTarget 3rd100%99.19%95% 4 th 100%99.46%95% 5 th 100%99.43%95% 6ht100%99.23%95% 7 th 97.83%99.21%95% 8 th 100%98.99%95% 10 th 97.62%97.8%95% Math GradeKMStateTarget 3 rd 100%99.45%95% 4 th 100%99.63%95% 5 th 100%99.39%95% 6 th 100%99.29%95% 7 th 100%99.28%95% 8 th 100%98.97%95% 10 th 97.62%97.44%95%

Indicator 3: Assessment: Percentage of students with disabilities who scored at the proficient and advanced levels on regular or alternative statewide assessment. Reading GradeKMStateTarget 3 rd 48.57%17.38%25.8% 4 th 17.95%15.62%25.8% 5 th 30.00%15.63%25.8% 6 th 18.60%13.29%25.8% 7 th 13.33%13.99%25.8% 8 th 17.65%13.30%25.8% 10 th 4.88%14.71%25.8% Math GradeKMStateTarget 3 rd 60.00%28.79%35.6% 4 th 41.03%27.55%35.6% 5 th 65.00%25.08%35.6% 6 th 30.23%22.41%35.6% 7 th 21.74%17.83%35.6% 8 th 35.29%16.05%35.6% 10 th 19.51%14.44%35.6%

Indicator 4: Suspension/Expulsion and Discrepancies  Percent of students with disabilities suspended or expelled for greater than 10 days in the school year.  Kettle Moraine School District: 0.00%  State: 0.79%  Target: At or below 1.69%  Significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for students with IEPs.  Kettle Moraine School District: No  State: 0% of districts  Target: 0% of districts

Indicator 5: School Age Educational Environment  Percent of children with IEPs age 6 through 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day.  KM:83.27%State: 61.91%Target:At or above 65%  Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day.  KM:3.94%State:9.97%Target: At or below 9.40%  Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.  KM:0.98%State:1.23%Target:At or below 0.90%

Indicator 6: Preschool Education Environment  Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program.  KM:21.15%State:32.56%Target: At or above 32%  Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.  KM:19.23%State:22.25%Target:At or below 25%

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Outcome A: Positive social- emotional skill (including social relationships) Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program KM: 62.5% State: 78.2% Target: No target The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program KM: 81%State: 72.5% Target: No Target Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy) Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. KM: 66.7% State: 79.5% Target: No Target The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. KM: 76.2% State: 60.8% Target: No Target Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. KM: 66.7% State: 78.2% Target: No Target The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. KM: 81% State: 81.3% Target: No Target

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation in Special Education and Related Services  Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.  KM: No  State: 0%of Districts  Target: 0% of Districts  Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.  KM: No  State: 0% of Districts  Target: 0% of Districts Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Areas

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition  Percent of children referred by a Birth to Three agency prior to age 3, who were found eligible for special education and related services by a local education agency, and who had an individualized education program developed and implemented by their third birthday.  KM: 100%  State: 99.33%  Target: 100%

Indicator 13: Transition Goals (Age 16)  Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measureable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student's transition services needs. There must also be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.  KM: 99.09%  State: 98.76%  Target: 100%

Indicators Not Required to Report Data for This School Year Indicator 8 Parent Involvement:  Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities  State: 77.58%  Target: 77.50% Indicator 11 Timely Evaluations:  Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation.  State: 98.80%  Target: 100% Indicator 14 Post High School Outcomes: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:  Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.  State: 29.82%Target: At or above 44.50%  Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.  State: 59.35%Target: At or above 71.50%  Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school  State: 72.86%Target: At or above 83%

District Strengths Kettle Moraine School District has several strengths  KM is above the target rate in participation rate for students with disabilities on regular or alternate statewide assessment in math and reading in all grades. (Slide 5)  KM’s suspension/expulsion is below both state and target for students with disabilities suspended or expelled for greater than 10 days in the school year and has no significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity for suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days. (Slides 7)  KM has high rates of inclusion. The percent of children with IEPs that are served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day is well above the target goals. (Slide 8)

District Weaknesses  Percent of students with disabilities graduating from high school with a regular diploma is below the target goal for the state. (Slide 3)  Recommendation: Work with parents so they understand the requirements of graduation. Schools need to work with parents when developing an IEP that will allow students to graduate with a regular diploma.  There are several grades that did not reach the target goal for percentage of students with disabilities who scored at the proficient and advanced levels on regular or alternate statewide assessments in math and reading. For reading, grades 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 did not reach the target. For math, grades 6, 7, 8, and 10 did not reach the target goal. (Slide 6)  Recommendation: Continue to use or start using scientifically, research based interventions. Make specific IEP goals and if goals are not met make sure to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions that are being used. Make sure to include both math and reading specialist in an IEP team.

District Weaknesses Continued  The percent of children age 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program is below the target goal and the state level. (Slide 9)  Recommendation: Continue to make sure that students with IEPs are being taught in the least restrictive environment. Roncker v. Walter (1983) set a 2 part portability test: 1) can the educational services that make a segregated placement superior be feasibly provided in a unsegregated setting, 2) if so, the placement in the segregated setting is inappropriate. Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989) set a 2 part test: 1) can education in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services be achieved satisfactorily? 2) if a student is placed in a more restrictive setting, is the student integrated to the maximum extent appropriate?  One indicator that was not required to be reported but is essential for special education is parent involvement. (Slide14)  Parent involvement is extremely important for special education. There needs to be a good faith effort to have parents be part of IEP meetings. Notifying parents of the meeting and agreeing on a mutual time is important. Options for schools when parents are not able to be at the school for a meeting are conference calls, skype, and google hangout. IEPs developed without parent input have ben invalidated by the courts.

References Kettle moraine school district performance report Accessed August 1, Retrieved from Wisconsin DPI (2014). Special education district profile kettle moraine school district Accessed July 25, Retrieved from: Yell, Mitchell (2012). The law and special education (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Pearson.