Illinois State Board of Education Balanced Accountability Measure Committee met Jan. 26.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
IBAM Members Present:
Jeff Broom, Chicago Public Schools
Emily Warnecke, Illinois Association of School Administrators
Cathy Mannen, Illinois Federation of Teachers
Mark Klaisner, Illinois Association of Regional School Superintendents
Diana Zaleski, Illinois Education Association
Daniel Krause, Illinois Principals Association
Erin Roche, Chicago Principals Association
Alicia Geddis, Danville School District 118
Karl Goeke, Illinois Education Association
Thomas Bertrand, Illinois Association of School Boards
IBAM Members Absent:
Kurt Hilgendorf, Chicago Teachers Union
ISBE Staff Present:
Dana Kinley, Executive Director for Center of Systems of Support
Christine Paxson, Director of ESSA/IL-EMPOWER
Amy Hyde, Administrative Assistant for Systems of Support and Regulatory Services
Rae Clementz, Director of Accountability
Casey Wills, Principal Consultant, ESSA/IL-EMPOWER
Nick Heckel, Principal Consultant, ESSA/IL-EMPOWER
Camilla Stewart, Principal Consultant, ESSA/IL-EMPOWER
Nicole Combs, Principal Consultant, ESSA/IL-EMPOWER
Trevor Chapman, Principal Consultant, ESSA/IL-EMPOWER
Casey Wills, Principal Consultant, ESSA/IL-EMPOWER
Kathy Moesch, Principal Consultant, ESSA/IL-EMPOWER
Shante Shen, Principal Consultant, Accountability
Carolina Fabian, Director of Family and Community Engagement
Jason Helfer, Deputy Officer for Instructional Education
Welcome and roll call was called at 3:02 p.m., and a quorum was present.
December 2022 minutes were approved after removing Chad Watkins as the representative of the Illinois Association of School Administrators and replacing him with Emily Warnecke.
Ms. Clementz provided a status update to Amendment 3 that was approved by the Board.
Dr. Kinley stated IBAM meeting’s purpose is to foster a stakeholder discussion to inform decision-making and recommendations on statewide polices. Now and Then: From School-Level Needs Assessment to More Rigorous Needs Assessment.
Dr. Kinley presented on how ISBE currently implements the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirement that schools in Comprehensive status develop improvement plans that are based on the
results of a school-level needs assessment. The presentation was intended to inform IBAM members on current IL-EMPOWER practices so that requirements for a more rigorous needs assessment could be recommended accordingly.
What has been accomplished? 2022 in review
• April - December 2022: ISBE Engaged IBAM as a primary stakeholder group for input on the statewide policies of exit criteria and more rigorous state-determined actions.
• December 2022: IBAM submitted recommendations to the Illinois State Board of Education.
• December 2022 – January 2023: ISBE considered input from IBAM, other stakeholder groups, and public comment and finalized recommendations to ISBE. The recommendations were approved January 2023.
• February 1, 2023: ISBE to submit an amendment to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to amend the Illinois policies of exit criteria and more rigorous state-determined actions.
What still needs to be done? 2023 decision-making ahead for IBAM
• January – May 2023: Advise and make recommendations on the elements and/or considerations that should be included in the more rigorous needs assessment
• Advise and make recommendations on standard protocols for school officials to monitor progress and regularly report to their boards of education, to the public, and to ISBE officials about progress on leading performance indicators
• Advise and make recommendations on training for local school board members to effectively support school improvement
• October 2023: Annual Summative Designations (fiscal year 2024)
Update on amendment to policies in Illinois’ ESSA Plan
If the pending amendment to the Illinois ESSA Plan is approved by ED, schools that don’t exit improvement status and remain in the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools in the state after four years of support from IL-EMPOWER will received a summative designation of Intensive support. Districts with schools in Intensive support will be subject to the following more rigorous state-determined actions:
• Complete a more rigorous needs assessment during the planning phase of Intensive support status.
• Follow a standard protocol of progress monitoring and regular reporting to their boards of education, to the public, and to ISBE about progress on leading performance indicators.
• Complete board member training developed by the Illinois Association of School Boards and ISBE on the role of board members in effectively supporting school improvement.
Today’s ask/goal for IBAM is to provide written recommendations from the Illinois Balanced Accountability Measure Committee, with each member representing their respective stakeholder group, that includes, at a minimum, a list of elements or considerations that should be included in the more rigorous needs assessment by May 31, 2023.
Today’s presentation is offered to share information with IBAM members to inform their decision making about recommending policy development:
• Sharing information about current school level needs assessment requirements and processes.
• Providing opportunity for questions and collaboration to develop informed recommendations about the elements that should be included in the more rigorous needs assessment.
Dr. Kinley shared ESSA requirements relative to school level needs assessments for Comprehensive schools and crosswalked federal requirements versus state policies. She then introduced Nick Heckle, principal consultant for ESSA/IL-EMPOWER, to discuss the two instruments that are currently used by schools in improvement status to conduct the required needs assessment. Illinois’ two prescribed instruments are the Illinois Quality Framework (IQF) and the School Excellence Framework (SEF). Mr. Heckle provided a general overview of the two instruments.
Dr. Klaisner asked if IBAM’s purpose was setting parameters for more rigorous state determine actions, but will it be developed by a third party through a Request for Sealed Proposals (RFSP)?
Dr. Kinley said Dr. Klaisner was correct and that that issue would be discussed later in this meeting.
Dr. Kinley provided a language crosswalk of references to needs assessments in state legislation and in the recent procurement of school level needs assessment services. An update on the procurement of school level needs assessment services was given and differentiated from the more rigorous needs assessment that is the focus of IBAM’s recommendations. Dr. Kinley then called on IBAM members as important stakeholders to discuss the elements and/or considerations they will recommend to the State Board to be included in the more rigorous needs assessment to meet federal ESSA requirement. Dr. Kinley then opened the meeting for discussion and collaboration.
Mr. Goeke asked, how will teachers be utilized in developing the more rigorous needs assessment? Can teachers and stakeholders be compensated to do the work instead of using public funding for the services from a third-party vendor?
Dr. Kinley again stated there is a school level needs assessment vendor being procured; Mr. Goecke’s IBAM presence means he is representing teacher involvement in the decision-making process.
Dr. Helfer asked a clarifying question to Mr. Goecke regarding teacher stipends for participating in this process.
Mr. Goecke asked, why are teachers not being compensated for the development of this instead of an outside company?
Dr. Kinley stated the tool is already created in the IQF and SEF and that again Mr. Goecke’s presence at IBAM represented teacher involvement in the decision-making process and in the development of the more rigorous needs assessment. We are asking, what goes into the more rigorous needs assessment?
Ms. Mannen asked a clarifying question: Is the committee starting with the IQF and SEF and making recommendations on how that is the foundation? But if a school hasn’t exited status, then there is this and more?
Dr. Kinley stated no, the system protocol/process currently being developed is focused on the school level needs assessment. The IBAM Committee is being asked what more rigorous elements, processes, or protocols need to be included in the more rigorous needs assessment. She said she cannot speak to compensation, that is not the of purpose this conversation.
Dr. Helfer stated IBAM is being asked what the recommended requirements for more rigorous elements for schools are that do not exit status after four years. It is being tasked with creating a consistent statewide process that schools requiring additional support would undergo.
Ms. Clementz explained a slide on the state legislation language and the state policy procurement language with how this relates to IBAM.
Ms. Warnecke asked for the slide deck to be shared and asked a clarifying question regarding the IQF and SEF and how it relates to the three designations.
Dr. Kinley stated that was the ask: What does IBAM recommend?
Ms. Warnecke just wanted to clarify where IBAM is heading in the next few months. The state policy procurement language is what was used in the RFSP for a vendor; responses are due back next week. It appears a procurement has already been sent out for something that is significantly more rigorous than we already have. Seems as though it has already been decided what the parameters are for the more rigorous needs assessment. Where does this committee come in if some of these decisions have already been made via the procurement process?
Dr. Kinley stated yes, the procurement of school level needs assessment services does provide more detail than ever before, which by default makes it more rigorous. Program clarity, however, should not be conflated with the "more rigorous needs assessment" for schools in Intensive support. Dr. Kinley then clarified the difference between state legislation and procurement language; statutory language does not go into sufficient detail to define a scope of work that could be included in an RFSP. The RFSP cannot be submitted blank, so those elements were included in the RFSP. What goes beyond these elements?
Dr. Helfer said the RFSP that is currently out there is to unify the data that we are receiving. It needs to be one instrument when constructed that values local context and local data for schools that don’t exit status after four years. What does more rigorous mean? What are the additional questions that could be helpful to increase student opportunity and student performance and enable us to dig a little deeper?
Ms. Warnecke asked, why did we do a fifth category if the low-performing schools are going to be doing the same process?
Dr. Helfer stated it was not the same process and clarified what we were looking for here. We need clear communication and language. He suggested pausing at this question as there needs to be some clarity.
Dr. Kinley stated we may not be able to answer all the questions that may arise in today’s conversation. IBAM’s role is to help us vet these questions.
Mr. Broom asked, what the process is and where is IBAM inserted into the process? Dr. Kinley asked him to clarify, and Mr. Broom provided a scenario. Dr. Kinley then clarified.
Mr. Goecke stated he did not want to hear the word “rigorous” again and said that schools don’t need more work; they need more money.
Dr. Kinley again tried to redirect the committee back to the focus and stated that the word “rigorous” is from federal language.
Ms. Mannen stated that Mr. Goecke is a member of the committee and asked that he be allowed time to say what he wanted to say.
Mr. Goecke stated schools don’t need more work or tools. They need support, time, and money. Schools are underfunded. The data Mr. Goecke wants to see is:
• How far away from adequate funding are these schools?
• What resources are being provided? If we have money going to a vendor instead of a school, what is the efficacy of that vendor?
• He wants to see data that indicates a vendor can provide adequate assistance.
Ms. Clementz stated that Mr. Goecke made a valid point about schools not needing more work. She asked for clarification on the data request that was stated as well as the request in the chat.
Ms. Mannen had a couple of thoughts:
• IBAM members want to make sure the time in these meetings is used appropriately and productively. The member feels the agency has already made decisions.
• Requested a copy of the presentation slide deck and a copy of the procurement application process.
Dr. Kinley stated that the procurement was written to include a placeholder of assistance from the school level needs assessment services’ vendor to launch the more rigorous needs assessment. The process, however, has not yet been developed.
Ms. Mannen asked, what ISBE’s thinking was behind adding the fifth designation?
Dr. Kinley stated that she understands Ms. Mannen’s concern. Internal conversations about IBAM’s input after the December meeting led to the recognition of necessity for the fifth designation to transparently operationalize more rigorous state actions. Staff questioned whether the fifth designation was an internal label only or both internal and external. Presentations to IBAM and the State Board have always referenced Intensive support, but the actual label reference wasn’t identified by IBAM as a more rigorous state-determined actions. ISBE staff recognized that even though a fifth designation was not included in IBAM’s recommendations, the new designation was necessary to implement more rigorous state actions with Comprehensive schools that do not exit after four years of support. Members of the Illinois State Board of Education have encouraged stronger state actions for schools that do not exit, so articulating Intensive supports as a fifth designation was done after the last IBAM meeting and prior to ISBE approval in January. Ms. Clementz expanded on Dr. Kinley’s comments.
Ms. Mannen stated it was helpful to hear the process. She wants to pose questions to IBAM members between now and February meeting: What do we as a committee see as the big picture? What do we want the more rigorous needs assessment to accomplish?
Dr. Klaisner stated he liked the way Ms. Mannen summarized. We are talking about 20-30 schools that have not shown improvement in five years. What is the root? What has kept them from crawling out of the designation for five years? The fifth label will exist no matter what we call it. In talking about being more intensive, we are going to the district level.
Dr. Kinley stated the procurement and slides would be sent out by Ms. Hyde.
Ms. Mannen called for public comment; there was no public comment. Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Dr. Klaisner and seconded by Mr. Broom. Meeting adjourned at 3:54 p.m.
https://www.isbe.net/Documents_BAMC/01-26-23-Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up