LM Apr 2025

for Illinois students to be considered proficient than practically anywhere else. We have examples of students who would be considered college-ready by SAT standards but aren’t by Illinois cut scores. We want to right-size our expectations to better align with other measures of student success like college enrollment and dual credit and AP coursework, while maintaining high standards for what students should know and be able to do. IASA: Is it frustrating when headlines suggest only a small percentage of Illinois students can read? TS: Very frustrating. Every state develops its own test and scoring method under ESSA. With Illinois having the highest cut scores nationally, we’ll naturally show lower proficiency rates. Comparing us to Florida or Connecticut makes it look like our students aren’t performing as well, when federal NAEP data shows that’s inaccurate. You simply can’t compare one state’s report card to another’s. IASA: People also seem to think if students aren’t proficient, they can’t read at all. TS: Absolutely. The idea that non-proficient students can’t read at grade level is another fallacy. It doesn’t mean they can’t read at grade level; it means they weren’t proficient on one test on one day based on our current cut scores. IASA: ISBE is realigning performance levels across exams. What will that look like? TS: We’ve had different bands for each assessment and want to unify them. We envision labeling students as below proficient, approaching, proficient, or above proficient across all tests. Currently, bands differ by test with no real consistency. IASA: Has there been any more discussion about offering multiple, smaller tests throughout the year? TS: I will always encourage school districts to engage in ongoing formative assessments. The best data for students and teachers to gauge how a student is actually doing is that data that is clos

est to a student at a moment in time. From my perspective, the state assessments are really for state accountability purposes only. The idea that you could use those to really inform instruction is very limited. At this time, we will not be looking to move that way as a state. IASA: Will IAR scores be returned sooner? TS: Yes, we’ve improved turnaround times, typically getting scores back by mid-May, no more than 30 days after testing ends. But, again, state assessments won’t inform day-to-day in struction, so districts should use common formative assessments to monitor students more regularly. IASA: What are the main problems with the current account ability system? TS: It’s a moving target that mislabels schools. Currently, schools in the Top 10 percent are Exemplary, the bottom 5 percent are Comprehensive or Targeted, and everyone else is Commendable. If you improve but your peers improve more, you won’t be Exemplary - that moving target is problematic. When we surveyed the field, and had these conversations with superintendents and others across the state, I’ve not heard any disagreement that the idea of 0 percent of your kids being proficient or up to 80 percent of your kids being proficient, and still being labeled commendable, is an appropriate bandwidth. So it just doesn’t make sense to a lot of people. We want to make sure that we’re giving accurate, meaningful data for schools that help them grow. IASA: What do superintendents need to understand about federal requirements? TS: What I want to say first before I answer is that some states have separate federal and state report cards. They’ll have a federal report card that meets all the federal requirements under ESSA, and then they’ll publicize a state-level report card that doesn’t meet those ESSA requirements.

7

LM April 2025