Illinois State Board of Education Education Policy Planning Committee of the Whole met March 10.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
1. Roll Call
Committee Chair Dr. Donna Leak brought the meeting to order at 2:38 p.m. Roll call was taken. A quorum was present with six members attending in person. State Superintendent Dr. Tony Sanders also was in attendance.
Members Present
Committee Chair Dr. Donna Leak
Dr. Steven Isoye
Laura Gonzalez
Dr. Judy Hackett
Luvia Moreno
Dr. Patricia Nugent
Members Absent
Dr. James Anderson
Dr. Jonah Rice
Staff Present
Dr. Tony Sanders, State Superintendent
Kim Clarke, Executive Assistant to the State Superintendent
Jo Ireland, Board Services Coordinator
Kristen Kennedy, Chief Legal Officer
Dr. Kimako Patterson, Chief of Staff
Tassi Maton, Chief Internal Audit Officer
Dr. Matt Seaton, Chief Financial Officer
Cynthia Lund, Chief Governmental Relations Officer
Dr. Jason Helfer, Special Advisor to the State Superintendent
Miguel Calderon, Chief Operating Officer
Mike Dizon, Chief Communications Officer
Dr. Michele Morris, Interim Chief Education Officer – Instruction
Jennifer Saba, Chief Education Officer – Operations
Edobor Efam, Chief Information Officer
Rae Clementz, Executive Director of Data, Accountability & Assessment
Dr. Christine Paxson, Executive Director of Improvement & Innovation
Dr. Ronda Dawson, Executive Director of Teaching & Learning
Joyce Gronewold, Executive Director of Specialized Instruction
Dr. Nikki Combs, Director of School/District Improvement
Dr. Nakia Douglas, Director of Special Education
Dr. Deshonda Daniels-Wright, Director of ROE/ISC
Kristen Parr, Director of Standards & Instruction
Maureen Font, Director of Data Strategies & Analytics
David Turovetz, Director of Charter Schools
Michael Gum, Director of School Business Services
2. Public Participation
There was no public participation.
3. Approval of Minutes: February 18, 2026
Dr. Nugent moved that the Education Policy Planning Committee of the Whole hereby approve the February 18, 2026, meeting minutes. Dr. Hackett seconded the motion, and it passed by a unanimous roll call vote.
4. Presentation
A. Accountability Redesign Update
State Superintendent Dr. Tony Sanders, Chief of Staff Kimako Patterson, and Executive Director of Data, Accountability & Assessment Rae Clementz presented on the progress of the Accountability Redesign.
Dr. Nugent asked about the exclamation points on the ELP indicators on slide 23 (high schools impacted by the developing student groups). Ms. Clementz explained the exclamation was highlighting the incongruity between a school with Exemplary ELP performance, meaning they were doing an excellent job supporting their ELs making progress toward proficiency in English, but yet would not be eligible for the Exemplary designation because their EL group had a Developing profile. She stated that these kinds of contradictions undermine the credibility of the whole system, not just the one system dimension creating the discrepancy.
Dr. Nugent then asked about a comment made at a previous Board meeting about Comprehensives. Ms. Clementz clarified that yes, it is possible for a school with one Comprehensive indicator to still be exemplary. She used East St. Louis as an example of a school that might have Comprehensive proficiency with Exemplary growth. That would result in core performance of Approaching Exemplary. If that core performance were paired with Exemplary performance on two or more of the elevating indicators, that would put them back up to Exemplary, which seems fair and reflects the strengths-based orientation of the system. Dr. Nugent then added she was asking more about Comprehensive subdivisions or subcategories. In response, Ms. Clementz explained that with respect to schools with a student group that has a Comprehensive profile of performance, those schools cannot receive an Exemplary or Approaching Exemplary designation; the highest designation they can receive is Commendable.
Ms. Gonzalez asked for further clarification on the ELP indicator and how it was calculated. Ms. Clementz explained that for each student, their grade when they are first identified as an EL is used to determine which grade they would be expected to reach proficiency. This then provides the scale score equivalent to the 4.8 composite performance level criteria for exiting EL. This allows us to determine the distance a student needs to travel to be proficient. This calculation determines a linear target, but every year afterward in that five-year timeline a revised target is also calculated. Students who make rapid progress get smaller and smaller targets while students who get off to a slow start see larger targets. The score reflects how close the student was to the target, with a 100 representing a student who meets or exceeds their targets while a number that is less than 100 is how close they were to target. The school value is the average of all student values, which means it should be interpreted as a speed. All students learn and grow; the question is how quickly they do so.
Dr. Hackett asked how the system works for children with disabilities. Ms. Clementz replied that the emphasis was on the relationship between proficiency and growth as well as those outcomes like graduation rate and making sure that children with disabilities have rates of growth that are equal to or higher than their peers, and that they continue to have strong performance in the elevating indicators.
Dr. Leak asked about the extent to which the system is a good fit for districts that decided to organize in grade band centers. Would they continue to have to borrow data from former students? Ms. Clementz stated that yes, they would, per ESSA requirements, continue to have to borrow data from former students. However, in the new system, schools using borrowed data were exempt from Automatic Comprehensive criteria for indicators where their borrowed data was two or more years old. Dr. Patterson talked about some of the direct supports and other flexibilities related to school improvement for such schools. Dr. Leak then talked about the importance of holding ourselves accountable at the state level for outcomes for all students, especially those who are disadvantaged, children with disabilities, or ELs.
Dr. Leak asked about the fine arts indicator and what ISBE was doing. Dr. Patterson presented ISBE’s work on a school-, student-, and district-level seal for fine arts focused on programmatic elements at all levels, and that Illinois was aiming to be the first state to have all three. Ms. Clementz added that this programmatic focus was important because the current fine arts indicator had such strong performance. Seventy-five percent of students take at least one fine arts course, and of those courses, 95% are taught by a fine arts-endorsed instructor.
5. Superintendent’s Consent Agenda – March 11, 2026
There were no questions on the consent agenda items.
6. Upcoming April Board Action
A. Approval of Decisions on Charter Appeals
Director of Charter Schools David Turovetz discussed this item. In addition, he provided a brief overview about the history of charter schools and ISBE’s role in the process.
B. Approval of an Amendment of the ESSA State Plan to Redesign the Accountability System
Executive Director of Data, Accountability & Assessment Rae Clementz discussed this item.
7. New Business: Items for the Next Agenda
Board members did not have any additional items for the next agenda.
8. Next Meeting: April 14, 2026
Dr. Leak shared that the next meeting would be on April 14, 2026, in Springfield.
9. Adjourn
Ms. Gonzalez made a motion to adjourn. Dr. Hackett seconded the motion, and it passed by a unanimous roll call vote. Chair Leak adjourned the Education Policy Planning Committee of the Whole meeting at 4:02 p.m.
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/isbe/Board.nsf/files/DSTMTR5CD3AF/$file/EPP%20Minutes%20-%20March%2010%2C%202026.pdf
