Grundy Reporter

Illinois State Board of Education met Sept. 16 and 17.

Here is the minutes provided by the board:

Via Webinar Only

ROLL CALL

Board Chairman Mr. Darren Reisberg called the meeting to order at 9:21 a.m.

Chair of the Board Reisberg announced that the Board meeting was being audio-cast live over the internet and video recorded. He declared that an in-person meeting is not practical or prudent because of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that made a physical presence for the meeting unfeasible.

Chair of the Board Reisberg asked the clerk to call the roll. A quorum was present with eight members attending via webinar. State Superintendent Dr. Carmen I. Ayala was also in attendance.

Members Present:

Mr. Darren Reisberg, Chair of the Board 

Dr. Donna Leak, Vice Chair

Dr. Christine Benson

Dr. David Lett

Ms. Susie Morrison

Ms. Jacqueline Robbins 

Ms. Jane Quinlan

Dr. Cristina Pacione-Zayas

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Chair of the Board Reisberg reminded those in attendance of the updated public participation policy and the sign-up procedures for today’s remote meeting.

Mindy Sjoblom, dean of the Relay Chicago Graduate School of Education, provided an update on the program expansion. She reported relevant statistics, the fact that they are providing remote learning, and she explained some changes to the school’s admissions requirements. Relay would like the Board’s support for these, such as a change in the minimum GPA requirement, a broader interpretation of undergraduate studies requirements, the flexibility to create clinical practice structures to best support teachers in their development, and access to scholarship and loan forgiveness programs.

Chair Reisberg asked about how Relay connected to teaching candidates in central Illinois and how it plans to roll out its program more robustly throughout the state. Dean Sjoblom told him that the candidates from Illinois found Relay’s program through ISBE’s website. In order to foster growth of Relay, she believes the school needs to find a way to collaborate with superintendents in order to get the word out. Dr. Leak asked if all graduates had found employment and it was confirmed they were all successful in doing so.

Ms. Robbins asked Dean Sjoblom to clarify the request that undergraduate studies requirements be adjusted with consideration of content knowledge. She explained that the current requirements basically entail majoring in a specific subject in order to teach it, but it is very often the case that a candidate has the content knowledge through other experiences or through a relevant major. Relay would like to make it possible for these candidates to be eligible to teach these subjects. Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked about how many of their candidates were planning to teach early childhood. Dean Sjoblom explained that the school does not yet have a training program available for early childhood, but it recognizes the demand for that and is looking into it.

NASBE PRESENTATION ON EQUITY – ROBERT HULL

Robert Hull, a representative from the National Association of State Boards of Education, presented statistics regarding education in Illinois that illustrate some of the issues with inequity embedded within the system. He also reviewed the Board’s equity statement and how the responsibilities listed within it should be delegated. He highlighted the Board’s role, its power to influence an equity agenda, and how it should hold itself accountable.

Chair Reisberg requested a graphic overlaying the data on high school course offerings with the data on school demographics in order to detect any disparities there.

The Board was presented with data on disparities in out-of-school suspensions from the 2016- 17 school year. Dr. Leak noted that the Senate Bill 100 was passed after that time period, and it would be good for the Board to look at more recent data when it’s available in order to evaluate the impact of the bill. Dr. Ayala said that Civil Rights Data Collection information for the 2019-20 school year will be available soon, at which point we will be able to make that comparison.

Chair Reisberg asked, on behalf of a colleague, for data on dual credit opportunities and how they are spread across the state. There are suspicions that there are inequities regarding access to these opportunities.

Chair Reisberg asked Mr. Hull if he could share examples of other state Boards of Education that have effectively designed their budgets utilizing an equity lens. Mr. Hull assured him that he could share some examples of states that have really allowed priorities in equity to drive the budget.

Dr. Leak shared that she thinks the Board has been looking at data and has been trying to figure out how best to drive change through its policies. However, the changes the members would like to manifest are often slower to come than they would like. Additionally, she stated that it is important to make sure that all of Illinois’ schools are being culturally responsive, regardless of student population, and the Board needs to do a lot more thinking about what Illinois’ policies need to look like in order for schools across the state to transition.

Dr. Benson made note that data doesn’t create meaning; rather, people create meaning. People have implicit biases when we look at data, and we need to bring those up explicitly. Educators need to move to “explicit equity” and it is important that the Board set that example.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas highlighted the ideology of anti-racism and the importance of educating students about it, especially in schools that are predominantly white. She said that people need to engage in a process of decolonization and Board members need to identify how they can address that through policy.

Chair Reisberg expressed concern over a lack of metrics that can determine whether or not the policies the Board is putting in place are having their desired impacts. He asked Mr. Hull to share with them any examples of helpful metrics that other states have developed.

Dr. Leak asked if there are states that show that students of color, regardless of income, are being as successful as their white counterparts. Mr. Hull said no, but Mississippi and the District of Columbia have shown significant strides.

ISBE EQUITY ADVISORY WORK GROUP PRESENTATION

Dr. Ayala explained that the ISBE Equity Advisory Work Group has focused on two main topics recently -- the equity impact analysis tool and an equity journey continuum. These two pieces will be part of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan that will be submitted to the Governor’s Office for approval. The presentation is equally split between these two topics.

Sergio Hernandez, director of the ISBE Family and Community Engagement Department, introduced the Equity Impact Assessment Toolkit, which identifies who will benefit or be burdened by a given decision, examines potential unintended consequences of a decision, and develops strategies to advance equity and mitigate unintended negative consequences. He explained the need for the tool, how to make it effective, and what the next steps for the agency will look like.

Dr. Ayala acknowledged Dr. Pacione-Zayas’ contributions and leadership in the discussion and development of this tool.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas praised the presentation for its thoughtfulness, depth of research, and consideration of various perspectives and existing resources. She said that the Board should think about how this contributes to its legacy and how it addresses the longstanding needs and demands of accountability as a Board. She said she is excited to see how this gets operationalized. Lastly, she praised Dr. Ayala’s body of work and lifelong dedication to equity.

Dr. Leak said that the distinctions made between the terms “work,” “awake,” and “woke” are helpful and should be kept in mind as the agency moves forward.

Dr. Benson expressed appreciation for the fact that the toolkit highlights engagement of stakeholders, and she wants to continue to encourage uplifting and involving student voices in these processes. Secondly, she wants the development of this toolkit to produce a system that will allow for the Board to see indicators of success, what the benchmarks toward success are, how documents and evaluations are impacted, how we get to the different levels of diversity and equality in stakeholder engagement, and that the data is of relevance and of diagnostic value.

Chair Reisberg, Ms. Robbins, and Dr. Pacione-Zayas added to the praise and highlighted the fact that there are a variety of types of inequities, such as socioeconmic level and sexuality, and all should be addressed in addition to the central racial concerns. Dr. Ayala expressed that the group has been keeping in mind the dimensions of diversity (race, gender, sex, citizenship, etc.) and echoed his point that it is important to address all of them in order to ensure that all students can thrive.

Chair Reisberg encouraged taking advantage of the fact that working virtually has, in a way, merged the two offices. Mr. Hernandez said that they have been able to bring people from the two offices together in order to collaborate on this project. Dr. Ayala added that the two offices really have been functioning as one throughout the pandemic, and this is something they will likely maintain now that we have learned to work effectively in a different way.

Dr. Ayala introduced the Equity Journey Continuum, which is meant to use existing data to create an element of transparency with the public in Illinois’ journey toward achieving equity.

Paula Powers, principal consultant in Special Education, defined the Equity Journey Continuum as a tool that presents a continuous range of equity elements or items that are relational and lead through a continuum of learning and implementing equity as a part of the development of culture processes, systems, and foundations. She added that it is a process that begins where an entity is and journeys to the destination of equity, offering equitable opportunities and access, inclusion, and educational success for all students while addressing historic inequities. She presented some of the group’s plans and goals for developing and using the tool in the near future.

Terri Lamb, principal consultant in Assessment, presented the draft continuum the group has developed based on its extensive research and work. She described the development process and how the continuum’s criteria were determined. She explained specific design choices regarding color, wording, and structure. Finally, Ms. Powers outlined future steps for the agency to take in order to start putting the continuum into practice.

Chair Reisberg said that it would be important to for the Board and agency to have their own publicly viewable continuums in order to be kept accountable hand in hand with districts. Secondly, he highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement and the importance of emphasizing that it is a tool for discussion. Thirdly, he encouraged the group’s idea to put out a pilot program first, especially since it will hopefully get several regional and district superintendents on board who can become ambassadors for the program once it is expanded.

Ms. Quinlan asked for details about how the data will be used to place districts on the continuum. Ms. Lamb, Ms. Powers, and Nolan Fine, principal consultant in Research, explained that the public-facing criteria would be qualitative and use very specific, clear terminology. They explained that the specific calculations that will be made behind the scenes (in order to avoid fostering any sense of competition) are still being determined. Dr. Ayala added that the agency would provide support and training for districts to be able to analyze their data and determine where they are and where they need to go.

Dr. Leak said that she appreciates the use of existing data instead of creating a need for additional data. She asked if there will be a space on the continuum for schools to write some kind of narrative where perhaps they are actively working to address an issue, but the data doesn’t show. She also asked if it will be possible to integrate the continuum into the existing School Improvement Plan, so as not to require an additional, separate plan from districts. Dr. Ayala said that it is a good idea to incorporate a narrative piece. She said that Dr. Leak’s second question can be discussed with district leaders.

Chair Reisberg stressed providing an adequate amount of time for district leadership to develop a high level of comfort with the continuum before adding it to the school Report Card. He believes that rushing the public-facing side of the project could end up creating resistance. Dr. Leak echoed Chair Reisberg’s concern that districts’ focus may stray too much toward trying to get a certain score on their Report Card. Ms. Powers said that the team shares this concern; in fact, the continuum would not be public facing for the first year. Dr. Ayala added that one of the elements utilized to place schools on the continuum is already included in Report Cards, and that this is an attempt to analyze and report that same information through an equity lens, foster discourse about the data, and figure out how the agency can help.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas said that the engagement process will be key and that it would be important to highlight resources schools will use in order to move along on the continuum. She asked if there was a way to use existing data to see how students are consulted and integrated into decision-making and leadership structures within their schools since uplifting their voices helps achieve equitable outcomes. Ms. Lamb echoed this sentiment and explained that this has been part of their broader discussions, but they were uncertain how to incorporate it into the continuum. Chair Reisberg suggested possibly adding something about student voice to the questions included in the 5 Essentials Survey.

Dr. Ayala expressed gratitude and appreciation for the Equity Action Work Group and its dedicated members who came together to discuss these topics even before the group was officially formed and have been working very diligently ever since.

The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:40 p.m. and reconvened at 1:05 p.m.

STRATEGIC PLAN

Dr. Ayala introduced John Luczak, a partner at Education First, and Heidi Guarino, senior consultant with Education First, who presented the Strategic Plan. She provided some background on the project and explained that elements of it will be in the agency’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan.

Mr. Luczak explained that there are three broad goals they have outlined, each with one or two priorities; each priority will have specific strategies to achieve them, along with what success will look like for each strategy. Dr. Ayala added that these few pieces will be more public facing, but there are a lot of other elements that are involved in determining success.

Chair Reisberg said it would be good to consider delaying the publishing of this information, with similar concerns from before about making sure district leaders understand and feel comfortable with the plan.

Mr. Luczak and Ms. Guarino presented three questions for the Board to address: What did you like about the success measures? Where do you have questions or concerns? Is there anything missing?

Goal 1: Student Learning: Every child will make significant academic gains each year, increasing their knowledge, skills, and opportunities so they graduate equipped to pursue a successful future, with the state paying special attention to addressing historic inequities. Priority 1: Provide all schools, districts, and Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) entities with the level of support necessary to propel efforts to continuously improve.

In regard to Goal 1, Priority 1, Strategy 1 (1.1.1): Ms. Morrison, Dr. Pacione-Zayas, and Dr. Leak asked for a baseline number of students who have electrical devices and internet access as well as how many students will still be in need after reaching the goal of 300,000. Ms. Morrison also stated that the goal of districts using the ISBE Curriculum Evaluation Tool does not speak enough to a specific outcome the schools are looking for.

Dr. Leak said that the success measure regarding internet access for 1.1.1 should include the word “sufficient,” as different families have different needs for internet service. She also said that there needs to be more specificity about the expectation of the use of the ISBE Curriculum Evaluation Tool, and those expectations should be set with equity and diversity in mind.

Ms. Morrison said that the plan should include what sorts of resources and professional development the agency would be providing in order to help districts achieve these goals. Dr. Pacione-Zayas built on this thought by saying there needs to be more detail about the stages of development that will ultimately lead to these desired outcomes, similar to the plans laid out in the continuum presented in the morning. She also said that in terms of semantics, she wants there to be less language oriented toward loss/deficit and recognize that there have been gains we don’t yet have the tools to measure.

Chair Reisberg said that he would like to see intent to collect and analyze data for the 2021- 22 school year for current Board members to be able to track the progress of their goals while they are still members. Additionally, he would like the agency to be looking into whether we can allocate any discretionary dollars to schools that feel they are not fully equipped to address the gaps in learning that occurred.

Dr. Leak inquired about the success measure in 1.1.4 since 33% of 2018 comprehensive schools will no longer need comprehensive support because of the way schools are labeled; however, there will always be schools qualifying as in need of comprehensive support. Dr. Ayala clarified that though the number of schools classified as needing comprehensive support won’t change very much, the goal is to uplift 33% of the schools that were classified as such in 2018, not reduce the total amount of comprehensive schools.

Ms. Quinlan requested that the collection of professional development data include more than participation information and to include implementation data.

Ms. Morrison asked whether the expectation set in 1.1.4 could be set for an earlier year and how the number 33% was determined. Krish Mohip, director of Operational Education, explained that this number came from when School Improvement Grant funding was in 1003(g). He said he could go back and talk to the team about the feasibility of setting it as a 2021-22 goal.

Dr. Leak asked if we have data on what schools were in need of comprehensive support in 2018 and if they have moved up since then, especially since that might inform the predictions/ projections. The team said that it could follow up with that information after the meeting.

In regard to 1.1.3, Ms. Morrison asked whether the metric will vary according to region, in particular whether the schools are inside or outside of Chicago. Mr. Mohip explained that CPS has its own framework it uses in lieu of the Illinois Quality Framework. Ms. Morrison asked if would be accurate to say that CPS functions as its own primary support provider. Mr. Mohip said that the team would need to discuss more with CPS what kind of support it would want from ISBE. Ms. Morrison asked if there a list of comprehensive schools we can look at that shows all the schools identified since 2014-15 and are still in need of comprehensive support. Mr. Mohip said he could follow up with data after the meeting.

Goal 1, Priority 2: Develop and support an aligned PreK-12 student learning system within four years to provide educators with data to improve student learning.

Ms. Morrison asked what the current setup is for assessments and how it differs from the blueprint that is listed as a measure of success. Dr. Brenda Dixon, Research and Evaluation officer, informed Ms. Morrison that a large portion of this measure of success has already been achieved and that a major difference is the inclusion of specific percentages of questions for each subject that will be on the assessments.

Ms. Morrison asked Dr. Dixon to speak to the enhanced parent reporting and what that process looks like. Dr. Dixon explained that the enhancements are included in the current Request for Sealed Proposals (RFSP) that is waiting to be finalized, so she cannot currently lay out all the details for the Board; once she can, she will include it in a Board Weekly Update. Ms. Morrison asked what the timeline for that is. Dr. Dixon explained that it’s currently in the state’s hands, and the agency has no control over when it will hear back on it.

Ms. Guarino asked Ms. Morrison to expand on a comment she made previously of wanting something more forward-thinking in the measures of success for 1.2.1. Ms. Morrison explained she was taking into consideration the fact that the listed success had already been achieved and wanted to know what the steps looking forward would be. Dr. Dixon explained that in regard to the detailed blueprint for assessments, her department cannot get more specific than it was in the document on the screen; it has pushed every limit possible with the vendor and released as much information as it could without compromising test security.

Ms. Morrison asked about providing support to expand assessment literacy in districts. Dr. Dixon said yes and that this was included in the RFSP. Chair Reisberg built off of Ms. Morrison’s inquiries by asking if there are specific actions the Board/agency should be setting out to do from this point forward.

Chair Reisberg went on to say that it would be important to include something in these plans about how we will adapt to virtual assessment. He also said that there needs to be a communication effort to build a narrative of why we are administering the assessment and why it has value. He presented the point that there is value in the state having a metric to be able to identify with one common data point how Illinois’ students are doing in a disaggregated way.

Dr. Lett expressed that he is disappointed with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for not waiving the accountability for assessment this year. He does not think it will give us meaningful data and there are security concerns for administering it. He is speaking publicly against putting districts through what he considers to be a futile exercise. Dr. Leak thanked Dr. Lett for his comments and highlighted the assessments’ ties to federal dollars that are important to a variety of students and districts. She said we should investigate petitioning ED to waive it for the country. Dr. Pacione-Zayas, along with stakeholders from her town-hall meeting, agreed with Dr. Lett’s sentiments. She noted that many districts already have their own assessments to track students, so there are existing alternative options for assessing the students and collecting the desired data. Chair Reisberg added to the conversation that leading civil rights groups want the assessment to be administered, and that as this discussion continues, we should be listening to the range of advocates who are making these arguments. One point that they make is that many districts do not have their own assessments, and they would be put at a disadvantage if they were to not get the data that the state assessment provides. He worries that waiving the requirement could end up having an inequitable impact. Dr. Leak commented that advocates for administering the are concerned about withholding federal dollars from districts that desperately need them.

Dr. Leak and Dr. Lett noted the need for more specificity regarding the “timely manner” referenced in 1.2.2. Ms. Guarino asked them what they think an ideal amount of time would be. Dr. Leak explained that in order to benefit students, the results would need to come in right away, possibly in a matter of days. Dr. Lett added that what Dr. Leak is describing might necessitate a fall administering of assessments in order for it to be more prescriptive. Dr. Leak said that if that were to happen, it would ideally happen in conjunction with a spring assessment in order to track the progress students make in a year.

Ms. Guarino asked if there were any final comments before moving on to the next priority.

Chair Reisberg emphasized not having points on the timeline that would extend farther than their terms on the Board. Dr. Leak suggested having intermediate steps toward those goals that can be tracked during their terms if it is unrealistic to push the deadlines for the existing goals to be sooner.

Ms. Morrison encouraged the team to make the goals more ambitious, in addition to being more specific and intentional.

Goal 2: Learning Conditions: All districts and schools will receive the resources necessary to create safe, healthy, and welcoming learning environments, and will be equipped to meet the unique academic and social and emotional needs of each and every student.

Priority 1: All schools and ECCEs will be equipped with the tools and resources needed to create safe and healthy learning environments for every student.

Chair Reisberg said that there should be more secondary goals that utilize a metric that shows that the development and adoption of these standards and training are actually rolling out to the field, and he emphasizes doing this in a way that targets schools that need it most. He also encouraged the team to think about how professional development can evolve and become optimized in this remote setting, using the Virtual Coaching Program as an example. Mr. Luczak agreed and connected Chair Reisberg’s point about secondary goals to a point Ms. Quinlan made, stating that it is important in the year following these deadlines to track what percentage of schools are actually taking the agency up on its trainings while also measuring satisfaction with and quality of these trainings. He said that they need to be cautious about overstating what they will be able to measure but thinks that these measurements can be applied across the strategies. Ms. Quinlan added that when the agency did foundational services, the evaluator was able to get a little deeper with data in terms of implementation. She recognizes that this is a challenge but thinks that using an outside evaluator would enable them to get some of that data through the evaluation surveys and follow-up.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas explained the Kirkpatrick Model, which would be help us measure changes in behaviors and outcomes more meaningfully than counting attendance at trainings and compliance with certain requirements. She offered to go through this model with the team. Mr. Luczak affirmed that this would be helpful.

Dr. Leak praised the fact that by the end of the year culturally responsive teaching methods will be fully adopted. She also brought up a concern about 2.1.4 and how it will be implemented. There should be an overall, integrated narrative, rather than snippets of events that include a diversity of people being added onto the current curriculum. Ms. Robbins agreed that teachers should be creating a more holistic picture. Dr. Pacione-Zayas said that the people who will be developing these changes need to be chosen thoughtfully and she highlighted the need to stop teaching history from a Eurocentric perspective.

Goal 2, Priority 2: Strategic resource allocation decision-making will be used across Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and within LEAs within four years to address inequities, close achievement gaps, and improve the achievement of every student.

Chair Reisberg said that the concerns here echo concerns expressed for previous priorities, such as providing baseline numbers when talking about a desired increase or decrease, increasing specificity in language, providing the metrics and data collection strategies that will be used in order to determine whether or not these standards for success have been met (adding more quantitative goals), and developing some more interim goals.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas agreed with the need for more specificity in the success measures that indicate how certain behaviors will be changed to produce different outcomes. She said the team should determine what acceptable goals are for certain metrics (e.g., determining whether or not 80% is a reasonable percentage of leaders to expect to know the expectations for designated spending). She also suggested that “know” and “know where to learn about” be measured separately. Additionally, she suggested trying to follow the SMART structure more in designing these goals. She also cautioned against the blending and braiding piece on the early childhood side, as it is up for debate right now through the Early Childhood Care and Education Funding Commission. Dr. Ayala is serving on that panel.

Dr. Leak said that the success measure for 2.2.2 is unclear and poses potential problems specifying what the expectations are other than the ones provided by the law. She questioned if the expectation is that the funding will be used to close achievement gaps, and she pointed out that if so, that’s an expectation that already exists. She said there needs to be more clarity about what the goal is there and how to achieve it. It also potentially takes away accountability for districts that do not have these specified student groups; schools without those groups still need to be required to develop a safe, healthy, and welcoming environment. She also believes that it will be a given that district leaders from districts that have that funding know the expectations of the funding, so it might not be what the measure of success should be. ISBE Financial Officer Robert Wolfe noted that though not all districts receive Title III or Title I funding, they all receive Evidence-Based Funding (EBF), and the categories of learners listed for 2.2.2 are the designated groups in the EBF.

Goal 3: Educating Educators: Illinois’ diverse student population will have educators who are prepared through multiple pathways and are supported in and celebrated for their effectiveness in providing each and every child a high-quality education that meets their needs.

Priority 1: To increase the number of educators who meet the needs of the local context and increase educator diversity in the Illinois public schools.

Dr. Benson asked how the percentages of what success will look like were arrived at. Dr. Jennifer Kirmes, executive director of Teaching and Learning, explained that the percentages were determined with the idea that they are achievable yet ambitious, taking into consideration historical trends where possible. The agency is also consistently reflecting on the data and conducting research in order to set more precise goals as the plans move forward.

Ms. Morrison, Chair Reisberg, Dr. Pacione-Zayas, and Dr. Leak expressed worry about not having more intermittent goals, especially ones while this administration is still in place. Ms. Robbins suggested that there be intermediate assessments administered solely to track progress rather than having quantitative thresholds to meet.

Chair Reisberg brought up an initiative that was discussed in the past regarding the development of transparency between educator prep programs and their consumers. He asked whether the agency was still pursuing that and, if so, whether it should be one of the core elements of the “Elevating Educators” goal. Dr. Ayala said she would look into this and is willing to incorporate it if the Board feels is important to include in a public-facing document.

Ms. Morrison reiterated her concern about how far out the listed deadlines for the goals were and asked for more clarity on the reasoning behind the goals that were set. Education Officer Dr. Ernesto Matias explained some of the reasoning for the timeline for 2.2.2 and assured the Board that the team would look into determining yearly benchmarks, since that seems to be a widely shared desire. He also expressed that it was difficult to determine some of the baselines as well as what realistic goals might look like, since a lot of that data has been and continues to be significantly affected by the pandemic. Dr. Pacione-Zayas said there is a lot to unpack here and suggested that the Board discuss what these assessments would look like and who will be involved in their development.

Ms. Guarino and Dr. Ayala said that the team would use the feedback from today to review and edit the strategic plan to be presented to the Board as often as needed until they feel comfortable approving it. Dr. Ayala commented on the topic of assessment, saying that it is important to be cognizant of everything that a change in that plan will have an impact on, such as the ESSA State Plan.

Chair Reisberg thanked the team members for making the process of providing feedback as easy as they did. He said he looks forward to seeing the edits that will be made and understands that the circumstances affecting these plans will be ever-changing. He expressed that he thinks it would be possible and ideal for the plan to be edited once with the feedback from today and be presented for approval the next time it comes to the Board.

Ms. Guarino presented the booklet that will communicate the Strategic Plan to the public, which was designed to be a document that pulls readers in and elevates students and educators. Dr. Leak asked if Board members would have access to a copy of this version of the booklet, hoping to share it with her colleagues. Ms. Guarino said that would be possible once the plan is complete. Ms. Morrison said she liked the way the booklet is set up and encouraged incorporating more of the earliest learners.

Chair Reisberg echoed praise of the booklet and thanked Dr. Ayala for arranging this entire discussion, as well as Mr. Luczak and Ms. Guarino for their presentation.

Ms. Morrison moved to adjourn the meeting.

Ms. Robbins seconded the motion and it passed by a seven-member majority roll call vote. The meeting adjourned at 3:18 p.m.

Thursday,

September 17, 2020

RECONVENE / ROLL CALL

Board Chairman Mr. Darren Reisberg reconvened the meeting at 9:01a.m.

He thanked the Board members, State Superintendent Dr. Carmen I. Ayala, and everyone at the agency for facilitating and participating in robust discussion yesterday regarding equity.

Chair of the Board Reisberg announced that the Board meeting was being audio-cast live over the internet and video recorded. He declared that an in-person meeting is not practical or prudent because of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that made a physical presence for the meeting unfeasible.

Chair of the Board Reisberg asked the clerk to call the roll. A quorum was present with eight members attending via webinar. Dr. Ayala was also in attendance.

Members Present:

Mr. Darren Reisberg, Chair of the Board 

Dr. Donna Leak, Vice Chair

Dr. Christine Benson

Dr. David Lett

Ms. Susie Morrison

Ms. Jacqueline Robbins 

Ms. Jane Quinlan

Dr. Cristina Pacione-Zayas

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Dr. Mark Klaisner, president of the Illinois Association of Regional School Superintendents (IARSS), addressed the Board regarding short-term licensure approvals. He commended the collaboration between the agency and his organization being stronger than ever. He reported that the educator shortage is at a crisis level. IARSS fully supports the proposed short-term approvals that the Board will be considering. Chair Reisberg thanked Dr. Klaisner for his continued partnership with the agency.

Robin Steans, Advance Illinois president, addressed proposed changes to Part 25 teacher licensure. She thanked the Board members for their enormous effort and leadership during the pandemic. Advance Illinois has shared its suggestions with Ms. Fox and her team and are hoping to keep the short-term approvals as narrow and rigorous as possible. Chair Reisberg welcomed Ms. Steans to email any suggestions/materials to Board members.

Dr. Brad Polanin, superintendent of Riverton CUSD 14, addressed short-term approvals. He thanked the Board members for their work during the pandemic. He said that he is in favor of the short-term approval pathways. He provided an example of the current licensure system inhibiting qualified professionals from working in his district, and said other districts face similar challenges. He said he hoped that this and similar proposals are approved in the future.

Greg Wertheim, executive director of from Henry Stark Counties Special Education District #801, also addressed short-term approvals. He said that rural areas have even worse shortages and described specific shortages in his district. Short-term approvals would positively impact his ability to fill positions.

Gina McLaughlin-Schurman, director of Human Resources in from Springfield District 186, also addressed short-term approvals. She described specific shortages in her district and spoke of the urgency of the shortage in the state. Her district is working on long-term solutions and encouraging people to enter existing licensure programs, but short-term approvals would benefit students now.

Daryl Morrison of the Illinois Education Association (IEA) addressed Part 25 licensure. The IEA has concerns regarding the elimination of the requirement for a content test, and its representatives will be contacting the Board about this and their thoughts on other changes in the coming days.

Aneesh Sohoni from Teach for America (TFA) shared how TFA has fared with the goals of its fiscal year funding requests and how, it has adapted its teacher training model in response to both COVID-19 and continued racial injustice. TFA supports the removal of a 3.0 GPA requirement because it disproportionately affects teachers of color and shows no correlation to teacher performance. It supports changes in content requirements to enter programs. Finally, it would like the Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship Program to include all approved educator preparation programs.

Cassie Blickem, director of the Valley Education for Employment System, spoke about vocational education in relation to the Part 254 Rules. She addressed the application for the allocation of funds having competitive disadvantages for career and technical education (CTE) programs, the impact of federal Perkins legislation on the maintenance of effort requirements, and the disadvantage of the competitive grant funding model on districts. She also expressed concern over a provision which disadvantages rural schools.

Joe Barbic, director of the Indian Valley Vocational Center, spoke about CTE administration rules. He questioned why career centers are not allowed to apply for reserved fund competitive grants. He explained how his organization could benefit from the funding and said that in order to serve member districts, maintain equity, and respond to labor market demands, career centers need to have the same opportunity to apply for competitive grants.

ILLINOIS PRIORITY STANDARDS PRESENTATION

This presentation discussed the purpose and development of the Illinois Priority Learning Standards and explained what a successful implementation would look like. It provided a preview of additional supports to assist with their implementation and provided specific information about the strategic alignment of these priority standards to the state’s assessment system.

Ms. Morrison asked if these standards are only meant for the duration of the pandemic or if they are meant to be long term. Dr. Jennifer Kirmes, executive director of Teaching and Learning, said that it was designed in response to the pandemic, but it is generally beneficial and could continue to be used post-pandemic, though is not currently meant to be a permanent fixture. Dr. Leak commented that she does not think that these standards are drastically changing the way teachers are designing their curricula.

Ms. Quinlan asked why state-level priority standards were developed as opposed to training teachers to be more effective remotely. Dr. Kirmes explained that the agency is working on both, referencing work being done with the Learning Technology Center and the Professional Development Grant.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked about how these standards consider dual-language learners. Dr. Kirmes explained that in constructing the working groups, they ensured that in each of the content areas there was someone who had experience with multilingual students and with special education students as well. There was also a group designated to the English- learning standards and evaluated by the Multilingual Department. Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked if there was any form for collecting feedback from the field before the release on Aug. 24. Dr. Kirmes said that the assessment alignment piece was the only development.

Chair Reisberg asked how the prioritization of social-emotional well-being and the support for administrators described in slide 7 might relate to IL-EMPOWER. Dr. Kirmes answered that primary providers will be able to enhance the ongoing training and support that the agency is seeking to provide.

Ms. Morrison asked if the statewide planning team would be addressing all the issues that have been highlighted by the pandemic or if it would solely focus on the priority standards. Dr. Kirmes said that, for now, it is focused on the priority standards, but since standards are the basis for instruction and there are issues related to COVID-19 that are affecting instruction, the team will serve that purpose in some regard, as needed. Ms. Morrison asked if trainings would be virtual. The answer was yes. Ms. Morrison asked if we would be funding additional staff at the Regional Office of Education level for these services. Dr. Kirmes said that there is not a definitive answer yet. Ms. Morrison asked whether there was an estimated timeline on the plan. Dr. Erica Thieman, director of Curriculum and Instruction, said they will be able to start rolling out resources for districts this fall. Dr. Leak questioned what the expectation of teachers was for implementation, since the rollout won’t happen until near the end of the first semester. Ms. Thieman explained that the use of the document would not be a requirement, but a resource for educators.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas expressed concern about how the plans for ongoing training and support would be pragmatically operationalized and questioned how the success of the implementation will be evaluated.

In response to the assessment update, Dr. Lett commented that there are issues of test validity in addition to other challenges the assessment would pose to districts and that the Board should solicit the U.S. Department of Education (ED) after the election about waiving the requirement. He pointed out that if an assessment with significant issues is administered now, it will have a negative impact on stakeholders’ attitudes toward assessment in the future when administered in a time where it would provide meaningful data.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked what the agency’s interaction with the Illinois Principals Association (IPA) and Illinois Association of School Administrators (IASA) would look like and why these were chosen over Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) and IEA. Dr. Sean Clayton, director of Assessment, and Dr. Brenda Dixon, Research & Evaluation Officer, shared that IPA and IASA directors provided recommendations for administrators to be on the advisory council group to ensure that the candidates were from diverse backgrounds and varying regions of the state.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas said that there was a very strong opt-out movement several years ago without a pandemic, and there is a growing resistance for proceeding with “business as usual” in general during these times. She and Dr. Lett emphasized the point that though vital funding should not be put at risk, the Board should participate in strong advocacy. Dr. Lett said that the agency is clearly working diligently toward developing a model assessment system for the final year, and that should serve as evidence that it is not attempting to duck accountability; it is just recognizing the fact that there is nothing to be gained from administering an assessment this year, which Dr. Leak agreed with, saying that though that loss of data is inequitable, there has to be a better way of making up for it and measuring students’ growth.

Dr. Ayala reminded the Board that the only statewide assessment we have in Illinois is the federally required one; not all districts have alternatives, so that’s something to consider in terms of equity. Chair Reisberg expressed concern about this and said that some civil rights groups are concerned as well. Dr. Ayala also stressed that the Board needs to provide clear direction to the agency regarding this topic of assessment. Dr. Lett said that though he recognizes the general value of a statewide common assessment, an assessment this year may not yield useful data.

Chair Reisberg said that the Board is not yet ready to give a unified position on the topic. Dr. Leak said that though there is not a consensus on the assessment, specifically, it seems there is a consensus that we do need to collect information and data to show that all students are being successful and that educators are still providing quality education and support to promote student growth.

Ms. Morrison expressed appreciation to the agency for all the work it is doing to support teachers across the state. She also asked that somebody who has an in-depth knowledge in standards development take a closer look at the document and make it more robust and cohesive. She noted the layout is different from subject to subject and that the formatting differs from previous iterations of the document and said to make the reason for that clear.

LEGISLATIVE AGENDA DISCUSSION

While the details of the veto session are not yet finalized, ISBE would like to prioritize: continued relief support to school districts during the global pandemic, time out and restraint, and the creation of a state education equity committee.

There have been three bills identified for the spring: Licensure Update -- Increasing accessibility and flexibility while keeping standards high; Educator Misconduct -- Adding additional offenses and licensure action; and Cleanup Bill -- Clearing up areas of redundancy.

Chair Reisberg asked Ms. Elliott if there is anything the Black Caucus has discussed that she sees coming down the pipe from a legislative perspective and whether the agency would be able to join the caucus in any of its efforts. He also asked how the state education equity committee might fit into this work, and if there will be any legislators on the committee. Ms. Elliott explained that the bill for the creation of a state education equity committee had the Black Caucus’ agenda in mind, in addition to a wide variety of others. She said that her department would have to draft the legislation, but legislators could absolutely be a part of that. ISBE staff will attend next week’s Black Caucus hearing, which will discuss the compulsory school age, third-grade literacy and retention, and educator preparation programs.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked Ms. Elliott to elaborate on the district relief bill. Ms. Elliott explained that much of the bill is similar to a bill passed in the spring and they will be going through it to see what needs to be continued or adjusted. The bill also addresses the lack of the clarity in the Disaster Declaration. Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked clarification questions regarding grading policies, hours of work, and the composition of the equity committee. Ms. Elliott clarified that grading policies are at the discretion of districts, clock hours are set by the State Superintendent, and the committee still has a lot of room for flexibility in its development. Dr. Pacione-Zayas brought up concerns from legislators and stakeholder groups about the lack of transparency in how funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act are spent. She asked if it would be possible to give the public information about how much schools got and how schools are using the funds. Ms. Elliott said that this is not a legislative point and would defer this question to Education Officer Dr. Ernesto Matias. Chair Reisberg said it might be helpful to find some ways of quantifying the impact of the changes meant to alleviate the teacher shortage through licensure.

CLOSED SESSION

Dr. Benson moved that the Board enter into closed session under the exceptions set forth in the Open Meetings Act of the State of Illinois as follows:

A. Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting. 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11)

B. Discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by Section 2.06. 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(21)

C. Meetings between internal or external auditors and governmental audit committees, finance committees, and their equivalents, when the discussion involves internal control weaknesses, identification of potential fraud risk areas, known or suspected frauds, and fraud interviews conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards of the United States of America. 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(29)

She further moved that Board members may invite anyone they wish to be included in this closed session.

Ms. Robbins seconded the motion, and it passed with a unanimous roll call vote.

The open meeting recessed at 10:58 a.m. and the Board went into closed session at 11:05 a.m. The open meeting reconvened at 11:41 a.m.

Ms. Quinlan left the meeting once closed session was complete.

SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES

Ms. Morrison moved that pursuant to Section 2.06(d) of the Open Meetings Act, the State Board of Education has reviewed the minutes of its closed sessions for March 18, 2020; May 20, 2020; June 17, 2020; and August 19, 2020.

Therefore, Ms. Morrison moved that the State Board of Education certifies that the closed session minutes for March 18, 2020; June 17, 2020; and August 19, 2020, to be approved and become open. Also, she moved that the State Board of Education certifies that the need for confidentiality still exists for the closed session minutes for the May 20, 2020, to be approved and remain closed.

Further, Ms. Morrison moved that the State Board of Education approve the destruction of all closed session verbatim recordings from March 2018 and prior.

Dr. Leak seconded the motion, and it passed with a seven-member majority by roll call vote.

CONSENT AGENDA

Dr. Ayala reviewed the items under the consent agenda.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas brought up the comments made during public participation about Part 254. Dr. Kirmes addressed three concerns from the public.

• First, the reason for making the process competitive is that if it is not, then any funds given out via formula or some other way would then be added to the required maintenance of effort the subsequent year. If the state is then unable to meet that MOE level in the subsequent year, then there is a risk of completely losing the federal Perkins funding.

• Second, the reason larger districts can opt out of their employment systems is that several districts feel that being in a consortium does not help them best meet the needs of their students.

• Finally, she clarified that this proposed rulemaking would make career centers eligible for grant funding, whereas the current rules exclude them. She would be happy to check again and consult with the public participant in order to make sure the language is clear.

Chair Reisberg asked what options smaller districts have to cope with larger districts leaving the consortium. Dr. Kirmes said that there are other opportunities specifically targeted to rural districts, such as the use of reserve funds and innovation grants.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas brought up the point that competitive processes often yield inequitable outcomes and asked how that is being avoided. She also brought up the point that CTE programs that are technology-driven get more expensive year to year; with a competitive grant, there is no mechanism to account for that. Dr. Kirmes explained if a district lacks resources to make themselves competitive, they can partner with other districts to make themselves more competitive. Every applicant for the Education Pathways Grant was awarded funding in this last round. There is not yet any evidence that this competitive process results in anybody being left out, and equity is a top priority.

Ms. Morrison and Ms. Robbins asked for clarification regarding the reasoning behind the changes to Part 1. Dr. Kirmes explained that ISBE’s administrative rules did not align with what was in the School Code, so they are being edited. There is no substantive change; requirements are simply being more consistently explained to the field.

Ms. Robbins moved that the State Board of Education approve the consent agenda.

Dr. Leak seconded the motion, and it passed with a seven-member majority by roll call vote. The following motions were approved by action taken in the consent agenda motion:

Approvals

Plenary Minutes: August 19, 2020

The Illinois State Board of Education hereby approves the August 19, 2020, meeting

minutes.

Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with University of Illinois Extension The State Board of Education hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to approve the amendment of the intergovernmental agreement with the University of Illinois Extension through Sept. 30, 2021, while maintaining a maximum total not to exceed $4.5 million.

Rules for Initial Review

Part 1 (Public Schools Evaluation, Recognition, and Supervision) MS & HS Graduation Requirements

The State Board of Education hereby authorizes solicitation of public comment on the proposed rulemaking for:

Part 1 (Public Schools Evaluation, Recognition and Supervision)

Including publication of the proposed rules in the Illinois Register to elicit public comment.

Part 254 (Vocational Education) Perkins Updates

The State Board of Education hereby authorizes solicitation of public comment on the proposed rulemaking for:

Part 254 (Vocational Education)

Including publication of the proposed rules in the Illinois Register to elicit public comment.

Contracts and Grants Over $1 Million

Approval of Title I School Improvement – 1003(a) Allocations

The State Board of Education hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to release fiscal year 2021 Title I School Improvement – 1003(a) grant funding allocations over $1 million for City of Chicago School District 299, Rockford School District 205, Peoria School District 150, and Springfield School District 186.

Approval of YouthBuild Illinois Grant

The State Board of Education hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to award the

YouthBuild Illinois grant in the amount of $2.5 million in fiscal year 2021.

Acceptance of State of Illinois Single Audit Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2019

The State Board of Education hereby accepts the Office of the Auditor General’s State of Illinois Single Audit Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2019, as it relates to ISBE.

CONTRACTS AND GRANTS OVER $1 MILLION – APPROVAL OF AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS GRANTS (ALLOCATIONS FOR LEAS AND RFP FOR NON-LEAS)

Approval of After School Programs Grants (Allocations for LEAs and RFP for Non- LEAs)

Dr. Lett moved that the State Board of Education hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to execute grant agreements for fiscal year 2021 with identified school districts not to exceed a total of $17 million and additionally release a Notice of Funding Opportunity/Request for Proposals and make awards not to exceed a total of $3 million to successful community organization applicants based upon a prescribed methodology and formula. The State Board of Education further authorizes the State Superintendent to execute grant agreements within defined parameters to any entity eligible to receive more than $1 million for a single award or over the life of the grant.

Ms. Robbins seconded, and it passed with a six-member majority by roll call vote. Dr. Leak abstained.

DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL

Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked about the communication to districts regarding Part 1 Kindergarten Individual Development Survey (KIDS) assessment and the administration to students impacted by COVID-19. Dr. Clayton and Dr. Dixon explained that the guidance has not been distributed yet because it was not yet approved by the Board, but the 40-day clock starts once a school has resumed instruction and some details in these rules will be addressed by a new advisory group. Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked who would be in the group and if unions would be represented. Dr. Dixon said that she has solicited administrators from IEA and IPA and reached out to advocate groups and teachers. Dr. Pacione-Zayas said that it seems like there is preference for one set of professionals over another, and she thinks that deliberate representation is necessary here. Dr. Ayala said that IEA and IFT have offered the names of teachers at all grade levels for all of the different guidance documents that have been produced since the pandemic and that the teachers chosen for this document would have come from that list. The agency does not get in touch with IEA and IFT every time it begins a new guidance document; the list is used. However, if the Board would like to adjust this practice, it can.

Dr. Leak stressed that the guidance should be sent out as soon as possible, since it will have a significant effect on some schools’ decision-making. Dr. Ayala affirmed this urgency while reminding the Board of the heavy impact on the pandemic has had on timelines. The agency is trying its best to act swiftly while still following all the proper rules and procedures.

In reference to State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board (SEPLB) appointments, Dr. Benson asked about how the nominations are received. Ms. Fox explained that when there are vacancies available, the agency reaches out to organizations in the state that represent the individuals who will have a vacancy and ask for nominations (e.g., public and private groups, the two teaching unions, etc.). The Board also can make recommendations.

Dr. Lett asked if there is downstate representation on the SEPLB. Ms. Fox affirmed diverse regional representation is included. Dr. Pacione-Zayas expressed disappointment that there isn’t representation from our state’s land grant institution, the University of Illinois, on the SEPLB. Dr. Lett also noted that a lot of the members seem to be concentrated in one region of the state. Dr. Ayala explained that a diversity of representation was sought for this board through a variety of dimensions and said to keep those other dimensions in mind when evaluating the membership.

Dr. Leak asked if the table listing the SEPLB members could have a column specifying what term members are in. Ms. Fox’s answer was yes. Chair Reisberg said that it would be good to have this information available to the public online somewhere.

Rules for Initial Review

Part 1 (Public Schools Evaluation, Recognition, and Supervision) KIDS Assessment

Dr. Leak moved that the State Board of Education hereby authorizes filing with the Office of the Secretary of State the emergency rulemaking for:

Part 1 (Public Schools Evaluation, Recognition and Supervision)

Ms. Robbins seconded, and it passed with a seven-member majority by a roll call vote.

Approval of State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board Appointments

Dr. Pacione-Zayas moved that the State Board of Education hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to appoint the following individuals to the State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board:

• Mueze Bawany, high school senior seminar teacher at Roberto Clemente Community Academy, as an Illinois Federation of Teachers representative of public school classroom teachers

• Arturo Senteno, associate principal, Elk Grove High School District 214, as a representative of public school principals

• Corey Winchester, high school history/social science teacher at Evanston Township High School, as an Illinois Education Association representative of public school classroom teachers

• Dr. Malik Henfield, dean of the School of Education, Loyola University Chicago, as a representative of private institutions of higher education

• Dr. Tywanda Jiles, assistant professor, Early Childhood Education, Chicago State University, as a representative of public institutions of higher education

Ms. Morrison seconded, and it passed with a seven-member majority by a roll call vote.

Emergency Rule – Part 1 (Paraprofessionals and Other Unlicensed Personnel) 1.630

Dr. Benson moved that the State Board of Education hereby authorizes filing with the Office of the Secretary of State the emergency rulemaking for:

Part 1 (Paraprofessionals and Unlicensed Personnel) 1.630

Dr. Lett seconded, and it passed with a seven-member majority by a roll call vote.

UPCOMING BOARD ACTIONS

Part 25 (Educator Licensure) Updates and Changes 

Ms. Fox presented on the proposed rulemaking.

Dr. Benson asked about what has been cut from the programs in order to shorten the licensure process from two years to one year. Ms. Fox explained that the number of years in residency went from one to two.

Chair Reisberg asked why one would advocate for retaining the two years of training. Ms. Fox ventured the fact that with a two-year program, there is an additional year of classroom time the individual is partaking in before they receive their professional educator license. Additionally, if the requirement of 32 hours of coursework is adopted by all licensure programs, two years would allow for more time for that coursework to be completed.

Chair Reisberg asked why short-term approvals are necessary when alternative certifications are available. Ms. Fox explained that there are geographic limitations to the certification programs statewide, and there are not certification programs in all the necessary endorsement options.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas questioned how a bridge could be formed between level 5 and the PEL and make this remedy for the shortage a little more permanent. Ms. Fox answered by citing one of the additional proposal requirements in Part 25 being “explicit allowance” in order to create more flexibility within the 32-hour coursework requirement. She explained that a working group will be formed in order to create a best practice guide to determine if individuals have experience or knowledge that suffices in place of some coursework hours. For many people, this removes a significant barrier in the path to the PEL. Chair Reisberg suggested requiring yearly benchmarks that demonstrate movement toward the PEL requirements; the consequence for not completing this each year would be expiration of the license. Ms. Fox wrote this suggestion down for further consideration and discussion and explained that individuals who have obtained their short-term approvals will be going though educator prep programs during their three years of licensure.

Dr. Leak brought up a concern about the fact that many new teachers leave the profession within three years, which is the amount of time this licensure is for, so systems of support should be embedded that will encourage them to continue.

Chair Reisberg, Ms. Robbins, and Ms. Morrison expressed some concerns about the content knowledge test not being required for licensure and the edTPA requirement being waived if an educator receives a “proficient” or higher in their evaluation one year. Ms. Fox said that the agency has received similar input from stakeholders and Advance Illinois and is open to modifications that would require the content test before the approval. Dr. Leak commented that she’s not sure if the content test is necessary and wonders if there’s a middle ground where the exam could be required after one year of being in the field, especially since mastery of the content grows when collaborating with other teachers. Dr. Lett made the point that skills need to be emphasized as much as content. Ms. Fox also clarified for the Board that the waiver of the edTPA requirement is only for educators coming from out of state who have gone through a preparation program elsewhere.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked for clarification on whether or not after three years of licensure teachers will have to then pursue another degree in order to get their PEL. Ms. Fox explained that they would not have to do that and would only need to complete the remaining prep program requirements, going through what’s called the “Licensure Only Program.”

Part 267 (Recycling Grant Program) New K-12 Recycling Grant Program There were no questions regarding this item.

Fall 2020 Waiver Report

Dr. Leak praised certain waivers that allowed for educators to bring their children to school with no tuition. Chair Reisberg brought up the fact that this desire existed even pre- pandemic, and asked Ms. Elliott if there’s any effort to remove the need to apply for a waiver, especially since there is little to no pushback on waiver applications. Ms. Elliott said that it is something she can investigate.

DISCUSSION ITEMS           Ed360

There were no questions regarding this item. Chair Reisberg expressed appreciation to William Witkowsky. Dr. Ayala noted that the October agenda will include an amendment to an intergovernmental agreement.

Statewide System of Support

Dr. Matias, Deputy Instructional Education Officer Jason Helfer, and Deputy Operational Education Officer Krish Mohip presented on IL-EMPOWER 2.0. They explained the extensive plans in place to provide support to Comprehensive and Targeted schools in order to improve student learning for all students. They also described funding sources, how the funds will be allocated, and how these plans will be implemented in the coming years.

Chair Reisberg said he needed some more clarity in how the primary and secondary partners interact and how schools are measuring success with them. He said that it might be helpful to include a couple of case studies in order to illustrate how the system of support will look in practice. Dr. Matias explained that the Illinois Quality Standards provide a foundation that guides the assignment of the primary partners. He also explained that contracts were signed that list certain deliverables that the partners are obligated to provide.

Dr. Ayala explained the desire to have focus in the plans for reform, as it has been demonstrated in the past that being inundated with initiatives and reforms can result in widening achievement gaps. Superintendents were given money and then sent a host of advertisements to sift through, whereas with IL-EMPOWER ISBE has matched partners to particular needs and is providing schools with more direct connections. Mr. Mohip added that the growth that is being aimed for will take a long time to achieve, but ISBE will work with schools on a quarterly basis to reflect on what their partners and the district have been doing and what data can be used to track growth along the way.

Ms. Morrison asked that this be an item on the Education Policy and Planning Committee agenda until it is up and running. She also asked if the focus is the school or the district and if every school used every Primary Partner. Dr. Ayala explained that the focus is the district because schools cannot do it alone and the change needs to be systemic and happen at a district level. Dr. Matias explained that that the agency is trying to figure out its primary partner model because it wants to build positive relationships but that might not happen if they are forced. Ms. Morrison suggested that the team investigate some existing models of external diagnostic reviews that other states have engaged in. Mr. Mohip said that the agency could look into using an external organization to perform evaluations. Dr. Matias made a final comment that having agency departments involved in this plan increases accountability in a very positive way.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked how Comprehensive and Targeted schools are being supported now that they are in a remote setting, and to what extent do the partners have the adaptations to handle that switch. Dr. Matias explained that every provider has taken action to account for this change. He validated her concern about quality of service and potential for success, while also explaining that we are too early in our circumstances to make an accurate judgement on this. Dr. Pacione-Zayas made the point that providing service in this different medium necessitates making thoughtful and strategic changes based on science; it is not simply putting one’s pedagogy online. She said that it would be helpful if the primary partners were to report some sort of self-reflection or self-study that demonstrates how they are being deliberate and intentional about adult learning and how to accommodate it in this modality. She added that educators need to learn more about how to connect through this new medium in a different way, especially because earliest learners learn through relationships.

Dr. Leak wanted to note that a Multi-Tiered System of Support is not special education and make sure the Board and agency understands this and makes it clear to the schools and public. Dr. Matias thanked Dr. Leak for that note and assured her he would make that note in future discussions.

Teacher Evaluation

 Dr. Ayala explained that as it currently stands, the final summative rating is still required. It is important for the agency to opine on this and provide messaging to the schools. It is important for our administrators to be observing teachers and providing feedback, especially in these circumstances where some teachers may be struggling. Some are going above and beyond and should be recognized. She does not believe districts should be held accountable for summative ratings, but some alternative performance rating determined by the district should be made and encouraged. Dr. Ayala stated that the goal of this discussion is for the Board and agency to be able to provide direction to the districts regarding this topic.

Dr. Leak explained the evaluation system that her district developed over the summer. She encouraged the idea that evaluations should happen; they just need to be revamped and remain as flexible as possible. She stated that it is paramount to understand that a year of growth is lost for young people and offered to share how her district is measuring it with Dr. Ayala, who agreed with this point Additionally, an important function of evaluations is identifying which teachers need support and providing that support in order to promote student growth. Chair Reisberg agreed, but strongly supports the idea of not issuing regulatory consequences for foregoing evaluations.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked about what stakeholders have said. Dr. Ayala explained responses she has collected from superintendents. She said that the cry for flexibility was strong from the leaders. She reported that there are memorandums of understanding (MOUs) that have already been signed off on with joint committees and districts regarding how they are going to be handling teacher evaluations. She also emphasized the fact that the field is anticipating and waiting for direction from ISBE because it was not covered in those joint statements.

Dr. Lett described a detail of the MOUs that have been written where returning teachers would keep their proficient ratings and focus evaluations on new teachers. He asked if MOUs such as these were able to be written with the unions and committees to provide the desired flexibility. Would that have legal standing in terms of the requirements and statute? Dr. Ayala answered that they are in statute. If a teacher is not evaluated, the default is “proficient.” Last spring, many schools defaulted to “excellent” if the teacher had received an “excellent” the year before and their evaluation was made infeasible due to the pandemic. When school is in session, there is opportunity for some observations and feedback, and that is where Public Act 101643 speaks to the joint committee agreeing on an alternative performance rating. What that would be is negotiated between labor and management. That is the flexibility provided in the spring. However, there is nothing in statute to indicate that summative ratings are completely suspended. Dr. Lett asked if this flexibility might go away if some sense of normalcy and in-person instruction were to be restored. The answer was yes.

Chair Reisberg summarized the discussion by explaining the law that allows for alternative performance ratings, which was unclear regarding the ability to waive the summative performance ratings. Some districts are considering waiving it. ISBE is not going to take any regulatory action for moving forward in that way, but as an agency, it still encourages districts to engage in evaluations. It has a model of a district with a strong system in place (Dr. Leak’s) so it will be able to provide support.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked for an elaboration on the encouragement of the summative ratings and how this differs from the several formative evaluations. Chair Reisberg and Dr. Leak provided explanations. Dr. Pacione-Zayas asked what considerations are being taken in terms of the variety of struggles teachers face working from home as well as the fact that these teachers have not been trained to teach using this medium. Dr. Leak assured Dr. Pacione-Zayas that these things will not count against the teachers. The summative ratings will not reflect all the same things that they have in the past. Dr. Pacione-Zayas pointed out that there is a lot of growth occurring that our current tools do not measure but is still valuable.

Chair Reisberg concluded the conversation by again summarizing some of the discussion for Dr. Ayala in the hopes that it would give proper direction to the agency in crafting the message that will go out to districts. He also thanked the agency staff as well as the Board members for volunteering their time and effort.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

Superintendent/Senior Staff Announcements 

There were no announcements at this time.

Chair of the Board’s Report

Chair Reisberg announced that Day 1 of the previously scheduled two-day October Board meeting has been canceled. The Board meeting will be held on Oct. 21.

Member Reports 

There were no announcements at this time.

INFORMATION ITEMS

ISBE Fiscal & Administrative Monthly Reports 

Freedom of Information Act Monthly Report

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT

Dr. Lett moved that the meeting be adjourned.

Dr. Pacione-Zayas seconded the motion, and it passed by seven-member majority via voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 3:12 p.m.

https://www.isbe.net/Documents_Board_Meetings/Agenda-September-2020.pdf