LM Apr 2025

TS: We’ll still identify targeted and comprehensive schools as federally required, but I want every school engaged in continuous improvement. As I’ve traveled statewide, I ask principals and superintendents about their improvement processes. Many have well-structured systems, but some areas don’t. We’re strengthening our quality framework and building a report card that helps schools engage in improvement cycles. IASA: How will Regional Offices of Education fit into this? TS: We have pending legislation to make every ROE a learning partner with ISBE. ROEs are statutorily required to engage with districts on improvement work. Districts could use Title I funds to collaborate with ROEs on improvement initiatives, hiring coaches, or professional learning. Unlike consultants, ROEs are permanent partners. IASA: How does this align with the Vision 2030 initiative? TS: There’s absolute alignment between ISBE and IASA on Vision 2030. We developed our strategic plan simultaneously and came up with similar ideas. There’s never been better alignment between our administrators association and the state board. IASA: Any final thoughts for Illinois superintendents? TS: We’re working to better partner with school districts in meaningful, relationship-building, and transparent ways. We’ve had strong participation in our listening sessions around assessment, accountability, and our systems. ISBE aims to be a partner supporting school improvement and student achievement statewide.

In Illinois, we don’t want superintendents doing two sets of reports. That to me is a waste of time and energy. What the federal law requires is that annually we have to issue summative designations for every school in the state. It also says that we must identify schools that are in need of either comprehensive or targeted support. And it does spell out in the law that that has to be the bottom 5 percent of Title I schools that have to be in those two designations. Under federal law, school accountability systems must include several mandatory components in their summative designations. These include English language arts and math proficiency scores, graduation rates, English learner progress toward proficiency, one additional academic indicator (Illinois uses student growth), and one school quality indicator (Illinois uses chronic absenteeism). Though chronic absenteeism has generated feedback, Illinois currently has limited viable alternatives that meet federal requirements. I encourage stakeholders to attend listening sessions to better understand the reasoning behind this choice and the constraints of the federal framework. IASA: How is ISBE redesigning the system to minimize school rankings while creating something understandable? TS: We’re exploring models like a decision tree, where schools would move through a flow chart addressing questions like: Do you have high proficiency? If not, do you have high growth? Another option is a profile of performance that clearly defines criteria for each designation, making it a fixed target rather than a moving one. Both approaches would break away from ranking and sorting schools. IASA: How will the statewide system of support change?

7

LM April 2025