1. Special Education School District Profile Slinger School District 2011-2012 Lynda McTrusty

2. Indicator 1: Graduation LocalTarget Percent of students with disabilities graduating from high school with a regular diploma 78.95% At or above 85% Data Source: Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES) Indicator 2: Dropout Percent of students with disabilities dropping out of grades 7 – 12 0.78% At or below 2.19% Data Source: ISES

3. Indicator 3: Assessment A.District met the state’s Annual Measurement Objectives (AMO) targets for students with disabilities in Reading.YES B.District met the state’s Annual Measurement Objectives (AMO) targets for students with disabilities in Math.YES

4. Indicator 3: Assessment Reading Participation rate for students with disabilities on regular or alternate statewide assessment. LocalStateTarget 3 rd Grade93%99%At or above 95% 4 th Grade96%99%“ “ 5 th Grade100%99%“ “ 6 th Grade100%99%“ “ 7 th Grade100%99%“ “ 8 th Grade100%98%“ “ 10 th Grade100%97%“ “ Data Source: Wisconsin Student Assessment System

5. Assessment Math Participation rate for students with disabilities on regular or alternative statewide assessment. LocalStateTarget 3 rd Grade93%99%At or above 95% 4 th Grade96%99%“ “ 5 th Grade100%99%“ “ 6 th Grade100%99%“ “ 7 th Grade100%99%“ “ 8 th Grade100%99%“ “ 10 th Grade100%97%“ “ Data Source: Wisconsin Student Assessment System

6. Assessment Reading Percentage of students with disabilities who scored at the proficient and advanced levels on regular or alternate statewide assessments. Local StateTarget 3 rd Grade31%17%At or above 19.80% 4 th Grade16%17%“ “ 5 th Grade29%15%“ “ 6 th Grade23%14%“ “ 7 th Grade17%14%“ “ 8 th Grade17%11%“ “ 10 th Grade18%14%“ “ Data Source: Wisconsin Student Assessment System

7. Assessment Math Percentage of students with disabilities who scored proficient or advanced levels on regular or alternate statewide assessment. LocalStateTarget 3 rd Grade54%32%At or above 28.20% 4 th Grade40%30%“ “ 5 th Grade45%26%“ “ 6 th Grade36%20%“ “ 7 th Grade22%18%“ “ 8 th Grade17%16%“ “ 10 th Grade18%14%“ “ Data Source: Wisconsin Student Assessment System

8. Indicator 4: Suspension/Expulsion Percent of students with disabilities suspended or expelled for greater than 10 days in the school year. LocalStateTarget 0%1.14%At or below 2.33% Indicator 4B: Suspension/Expulsion Discrepancies 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 and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. LocalStateTarget NO0% of 0% of Districts Districts

9. Indicator 5: School Age Educational Environment Percent of students with disabilities ages 6-21 served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. LocalStateTarget 73.12%59.42%At or below 62.50% Percent of students with disabilities ages 6-21 served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. LocalStateTarget 11.11%10.01%At or below 9.70% Percent of students with disabilities ages 6-21 served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. LocalStateTarget 0.36%1.20%At or below 0.95% Data Source: Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES) October 1 Child count

10. Indicator 6: Preschool Educational 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. LocalStateTarget 7.14%30.98%Baseline data. No target set. Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility. LocalStateTarget 33.33%25.89%Baseline data. No target set. Data Source: Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES) October 1 Child Count

11. Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes **Slinger School District: No students included in this category. Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Data Source: Indicator 7: Child Outcomes

12. Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that the schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. LocalStateTarget 83.67%78.29%75% Data Source: Wisconsin DPI Special Education Parent Survey 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. LocalStateTarget NO0% of Districts0% of Districts Data Source: ISES Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Areas Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. LocalStateTarget Data Source: ISES NO0% of Districts0% of Districts

13. Indicator 11: Timely Evaluations Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation. LocalStateTarget Not required 98.91%100% to report data Data Source: Procedural Compliance for this school Self-Assessmentyear. 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 IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday. LocalStateTarget 100%99.23%100% Data Source: Program Participation System (PPS)

14. 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. LocalStateTarget Not required 79.28%100% to report data for this school year. Data Source: Procedural Compliance Self-Assessment

15. 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: LocalStateTarget Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.60%41.52%At or above 41.50% Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.90%69.57%At or above 69.60% 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.100%83.26%At or above 83.30% Data Source: ISES, Wisconsin Statewide Post High Outcomes Survey

16. The profile that I used was from 2011-2012 school year as it was the most complete profile that I found. Looking at the data I found that, for the most part, Slinger seemed to outperform the state, but sometimes fell short of the target. Slinger did fall short of the target goal for Indicator 1: Graduation. The percent of students with disabilities graduating from high school with a regular diploma was at 78.95% while the goal is at or above 85%. This may be due to a number of factors. First, the IEP team must meet to discuss whether or not the student is ready to graduate. (Yell, p. 203) The student must have achieved his or her IEP goals, however, a school can graduate the student if he or she has met the school’s regular high school graduation criteria but has not met the IEP goals. (Yell, p. 203) However, if a student has met his or her IEP goals but has not met the graduation requirements, the school is not required to award the student a diploma. (Yell, p. 203) One reason Slinger may not have met the target was that some students may not have met the IEP goals or just were not ready to graduate. A way to address this issue may be to provide these students with additional one-on-one instruction in the areas they may not be successful. The IEP team could also use the state’s and Slinger’s graduation requirements as a basis for planning transition services or writing annual goals so that the student has a better opportunity to graduate with a regular diploma.

17. Another area in which Slinger fell short of the target goal was the participation rate for students with disabilities on regular or alternate statewide assessments, specifically grades 3 and 4. According to No Child Left Behind (NCLB), students with disabilities are an important part of a school’s student body and to ensure that instruction and achievement for these students was improved, all students with disabilities had to be assessed and the results of these assessments had to be included in the data used to determine if a school and school district made AYP. At this time I am unaware of the circumstances as to why all students with disabilities did not participate in the statewide testing, but the circumstances may not be important. All students should participate and be allowed to receive accommodations or modifications in order to get a true picture of a student’s achievement. “NCLB therefore requires that school districts provide students with disabilities access to appropriate accommodations if necessary to take the statewide assessment.” (Yell, p. 158) In order to reach the target, the IEP team must determine how the student will participate in the statewide assessment and what accommodations will be necessary.

18. Slinger consistently fell short in the assessment area for both math and reading in grades 7, 8, and 10. The percentage of students who scored proficient or advanced levels on regular or alternate statewide assessments fell below the target goal. Here again, the IEP team needs to meet and discuss what accommodations need to be made in order for the students to be successful on the assessments. Another area that the IEP team would need to look at is the data that is collected from the interventions each student is participating in. Perhaps changes in the intervention the student is receiving will help better prepare them for the statewide assessments. The data collected regarding Indicator 5: School Age Educational Environment showed that 11.11% of students with disabilities ages 6-21 served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day fell short of the target goal which is set at or below 9.70%. Although we fell short of the goal, I find this area difficult to find a resolution for without knowing the reasoning behind a student not participating in the regular classroom. According to LRE mandate of the IDEA, students with disabilities must be (1) educated along with students without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate and (2) students with disabilities should be removed from integrated setting only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that an appropriate education with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily in the general education setting. (Yell, p. 288) Less than 40% of the time spent in the regular class may have been decided as the LRE for the particular students.

19. Despite Slinger falling short of the target goal in the listed areas, there are also many strengths of the district that I found. First, Slinger is doing an outstanding job in reading and math at the elementary level. The percentage of students that scored proficient or advanced on the statewide assessments in both reading and math scored well above the target goal of at or above 19.80% for reading and 28.20% for math. This data shows me that the effort that is put in to the interventions is helping the students to be successful when taking the assessments. The data also showed that the percentage of students with disabilities who were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school was well above the listed target goals. This shows me that the School District of Slinger is working with students on transition goals and they are a part of the IEP process. I feel that parents play an important role in their child’s education and I am proud (as part of the staff and as a parent of three children in special education) to say that according to the Wisconsin DPI Special Education Parent Survey, 83.67% of parents with a child receiving special education services reported that the school facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for their child. This is so important because involving the parent in the IEP process is essential to the success of the child.

20. References and Credits www2.dpi.state.wi.us/DistrictProfile/Pages/DistrictProfile.aspx School District of Slinger http://reportcards.dpi.wi.gov/ The Law and Special Education – Third Edition, Yell, Mitchell L. Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES) Wisconsin DPI Special Education Parent Survey Procedural Compliance Self-Assessment Program Participation System (PPS) Postsecondary Transition Plan (PTP)