Grundy Reporter

Illinois State Board of Education, Education Policy Planning Committee of the Whole met Dec. 17.

Here are the minutes provided by the Committee:

1. Roll Call

Committee Chair Dr. Donna Leak brought the meeting to order at 3 p.m. Roll call was taken, and a quorum was present, with six members attending in person. Dr. James Anderson and Dr. Anna Grassellino were absent. State Superintendent Dr. Tony Sanders also was in attendance.

Chair Leak stated that members would consider the participation of Dr. Chavarria via video conference due to employment purposes. In accordance with the bylaws of the Illinois State Board of Education, the Board may permit a member to participate by other means if they cannot physically attend a meeting because of employment purposes.

Laura Gonzalez moved that the State Board of Education permit the participation of Dr. Chavarria via video conference. Dr. Benson seconded the motion, and it passed by a unanimous roll call vote.

Members Present

Committee Chair Dr. Donna Leak

Dr. Steven Isoye

Dr. Christine Benson

Dr. Sherly Chavarria (virtual)

Roger Eddy

Laura Gonzalez

Dr. Patricia Nugent

Members Absent

Dr. James Anderson

Dr. Anna Grassellino

Staff Present

Dr. Tony Sanders, State Superintendent

Jo Ireland, Board Services Coordinator

Kim Clarke, Executive Assistant to the State Superintendent

Isabel Schoeman, Special Assistant to the State Superintendent

Kristen Kennedy, Chief Legal Officer

Dr. Kimako Patterson, Chief of Staff

Dr. Matt Seaton, Chief Financial Officer

Tassi Maton, Chief Internal Audit Officer

Melissa Oller, Chief Operating Officer

Edobor Efam, Chief Information Officer

Dr. Jason Helfer, Chief Education Officer – Instruction (virtual)

Jennifer Saba, Chief Education Officer – Operations

Irma Snopek, Chief Policy & Communications Officer

Ann Whalen, Chief Advisor to Early Childhood Transition

Emily Fox, Director of Educator Effectiveness

Rae Clementz, Executive Director of Data, Accountability, and Instruction

Marci Johnson, Director of CTE

Dana Stoerger, Director of Legislative Affairs

Milton Leathers, Director of Accountability

Tom Bazan, Director of Budget & Financial Management

Christine Paxson, Executive Director of Improvement & Innovation

David Turovetz, Director of Charter Schools

Joyce Gronewold, Executive Director of Specialized Instruction

Casey Wills, Principal Consultant for School/District Improvement (virtual)

Hector Rodriguez, Co-Director of Government Relations (virtual)

Nick Heckel, Supervisor of School/District Improvement (virtual)

Tiffany Burnett, Executive Director of Safe & Healthy Climate (virtual)

Dr. Ronda Dawson, Executive Director of Teaching & Learning

2. Public Participation

Rachel Wherley, Co-Director of the Mascots Matter Campaign, spoke in opposition of the Freeburg High School mascot, the midget. She has achondroplasia dwarfism along with her husband and youngest child. Ms. Wherley detailed the discriminatory history of the term midget and expressed that it dehumanizes those with dwarfism and is considered a slur. She reminded the Board that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protects students from discrimination based on disability and that this mascot could have a negative impact on students with dwarfism that attend or visit Freeburg High School. Ms. Wherley encouraged the Board and listeners to learn more by visiting mascotsmatter.com to view their petition with nearly 10,000 signatures or to connect with their campaign by emailing inclusivemascots@gmail.com. She encouraged the Board to take action regarding this issue.

Shelby Holloway, Co-Director of the Mascots Matter Campaign, also spoke in opposition of the Freeburg High School mascot. Ms. Holloway reiterated that dwarfism is a disability protected by the ADA and that the term midget has a highly discriminatory history. She urged the Board that they cannot ignore the impact of the term’s use as a mascot at Freeburg High School. She emphasized her belief that schools should be inclusive spaces. Ms. Holloway noted that the campaign has attempted to contact Freeburg High School to begin discussions about a mascot change, but their outreach has been met with silence. Ms. Holloway said that the Board has a role to play in fostering inclusive learning environments under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and encouraged those who would like to know more to contact the campaign at inclusivemascots@gmail.com.

3. Approval of Minutes: Nov. 21, 2024

Dr. Chavarria moved that the Education Policy Planning Committee of the Whole hereby approve the Nov. 21, 2024, meeting minutes. Dr. Nugent seconded the motion, and it passed by a unanimous roll call vote.

4. Superintendent’s Consent Agenda and Action Items – Dec. 18, 2024

Director of Charter Schools David Turovetz spoke to the Board regarding additional updates to the memo for item 4.C Approval of Charter Renewal Decision for Southland College Prep Charter High School. He drew the Board’s attention to a transcription error made in the memo published with the Board meeting agenda. The original memo predicted a budget deficit for Southland College Prep in years two through five of the renewal term, but this has

now been updated to show a surplus for each of those years. The updated memo was shared with the Board on BoardDocs. Dr. Nugent confirmed with Mr. Turovetz and Jo Ireland, Board Services Coordinator, that the updated memo is on the BoardDocs page for both the EPP Committee meeting and the Dec. 18 Board meeting.

5. Discussion & Approval

A. Approval of the Spring Session Legislative Agenda

Executive Director of Legislative Affairs Dana Stoerger discussed this item.

Regarding the student discipline agenda item, Dr. Benson asked how the rulings articulated by Mr. Stoerger would interact with students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and which would take precedent. Mr. Stoerger answered that this would likely depend on the district in terms of how students receive their services, adding that he would have to defer to the special education team to confirm how IEPs would supersede Alternative Learning Opportunities Programs (ALOP). Dr. Sanders said that this measure would not prevent a district from conducting pull-out services for a student with an IEP that recommends those services but would prevent a permanent pull-out of a student and placement into an alternative institution.

Ms. Gonzalez asked if there are other options available for students in Grades K-2 for whom a general education setting may not be the best environment for their safety or the safety of other students. Chief Policy and Communications Officer Irma Snopek answered that those students would generally have an IEP, and the IEP would dictate what is best for the student. Dr. Sanders clarified that this agenda item is not a special education initiative and is to prevent pull-out services and make sure students receive push-in services absent an IEP. Chair Leak and Ms. Gonzalez recommended the language of “absent an IEP” be added to the memo. Dr. Sanders stated another clarification, which is that as of now, ALOP funding cannot be used for lower grade levels, so this measure would allow that funding to be accessed for students in Grades K-2 as well.

Mr. Eddy asked if ISBE has data on school expulsions for students in Grades K-2. Chair Leak agreed she was also interested in seeing the data. Dr. Sanders replied that last year there were two kindergarten students permanently expelled. Chair Leak asked if ISBE also has suspension data. Dr. Sanders replied that the agency has that data, and he can retrieve it for the Board. Mr. Eddy asked if ISBE knows the reason for why those two students were expelled or the details of how that decision was made. Dr. Sanders said we do not have that information. Mr. Eddy confirmed this does not affect decision making related to denying attendance for students who are not immunized. Dr. Sanders answered that is correct and these are only measures related to expulsions for student conduct and behavior. Mr. Eddy expressed curiosity about the alternatives available when a student who is not a special education student disrupts the learning of the rest of the students in their classroom and whether school administrators would then have to suspend in that case. Dr. Sanders explained that this measure stems from his policies as a district superintendent, which he put in place because suspensions and expulsions do not have the same impact on younger students as they do on older students, so he would instead defer to behavior intervention plans, safety plans, or ALOP services. Ms. Snopek added that this measure does not oppose providing students with the types of services that might help them; it just regulates the place in which those services are provided. Mr. Eddy asked if this would allow the school administration to remove a student from the classroom to provide some form of alternative service. He asked for more information on the two kindergarten expulsions from the last year and why the school district deemed expulsion necessary. He expressed that the total banning of expulsions for an age group is a strong standard for him. Ms. Snopek said that the bill would allow districts to provide alternative services to students using ALOP funds and would in no way prohibit alternative services, they just believe the best place to provide those services is within the schools. Mr. Eddy stated he understood but he would like to know more about the kind of circumstances in which a school district would deem it necessary to remove a student from the classroom. Dr. Sanders stated that there is no alternative currently for a kindergarten student who is expelled from school. Mr. Eddy emphasized his desire to know what happened to the two kindergarteners who were expelled and if they were given alternative services, as well as the circumstances that led the administrations and school boards and everyone involved to approve an expulsion after a lengthy process in which students can contest expulsion. Ms. Snopek stated that it is unlikely that ISBE can retrieve that information because it is protected data but reminded the Board that we do know that around 80% of students who receive exclusionary discipline are black or brown, indicating a problem in disciplinary practice. Mr. Eddy asked if essentially this item is stating that ISBE can think of no reason to ever remove a kindergartener from a classroom. Dr. Sanders said he cannot think of a reason to remove a kindergarten student on a permanent basis.

Chair Leak asked if ISBE is planning to increase funding for ALOP programs since they currently do not extend to younger grades, meaning there will be a cost associated in terms of dollars and human capital. She restated that she is wondering whether we have the proper funding and human capital available to make the initiative happen. Chief Education Officer – Operations Jen Saba added that ALOP is funded by Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) dollars, meaning there is no separate ALOP grant. Chair Leak asked if this means that school districts will have to reallocate their EBF dollars to accommodate the expansion of ALOP to younger grades; Ms. Saba said yes. Ms. Snopek said school districts will now have the ability to use EBF funding to provide these alternative services. Chief Financial Officer Dr. Matt Seaton clarified that ALOPs are listed as a separate entity within EBF, and they get a direct funding stream, meaning the money does not come out of the districts’ coffers. Ms. Saba added that this is only the case for districts run by a Regional Office of Education (ROE). Chair Leak noted that ROEs only receive a fixed dollar amount, so the ROEs will have to adjust their funding to expand ALOP funds to younger grades. Dr. Seaton said that the EBF formula will react to additional students being added to ALOP programs and with time the ROEs will receive more money.

Mr. Eddy expressed that this is a difficult measure for him to vote on because the Board cannot imagine every situation that might occur after this legislation is passed. He worries about taking away the local school districts’ option to act in a manner they deem appropriate when a scenario occurs that the Board cannot currently conceive of. He added that this would take away authority from local school boards and districts to protect students from an egregious threat; he stated that he could not think of a reason for which a kindergarten student would have been expelled during his time as a district superintendent, but he acknowledged that other school administrators have faced more severe situations. He expressed hesitation over eliminating a disciplinary tool without alternatives or guidance. Chair Leak said if an egregious act were to occur, the legislation would require the district to provide alternative support to a student as opposed to simply removing them from the education system, which is an approach that many districts already take. Mr. Eddy said this legislation would then require districts to find alternatives rather than giving them the option, and Chair Leak agreed. Chair Leak stated that it is crucial that ISBE propose this legislation and its language to district superintendents and allow them the opportunity to respond.

Dr. Nugent asked that the Board consider repeat offenders of egregious acts and what should occur if the acts continue after receiving alternative services.

Dr. Sanders stated that ISBE has collected much more information than what is included in the Board memo, including what other states are doing. Illinois is one of the only states in the country that allows expulsions from pre K to second grade. Mr. Eddy asked what is being done in those other states as an alternative to expulsion. Chair Leak agreed that the remaining question is what the alternatives provided will be. Dr. Sanders shared that he was able to avoid expelling any K-2 student during his nine years as a district superintendent, with 3,000 kindergarteners annually. Mr. Eddy said he was glad that he did not have to expel anyone of that age, but he does not know the details of why the two kindergarteners were expelled and what led school officials to reach that decision. He acknowledged that ISBE probably will not be able to obtain that information, but he highlighted that K-2 expulsions are still extremely rare in the state. He is concerned about taking away the ability to expel altogether. Dr. Isoye shared his view of the legislation, which is that instead of telling students they are no longer allowed to attend school and their families that they will need to find alternatives on their own, the legislation opens up the ALOP dollars to younger grades so that they can develop alternatives when they previously did not have the funding to do so. He continued that he can’t imagine a scenario in which a kindergartener would be expelled but he can imagine school districts seeing the opportunity to develop alternatives for students when they did not have the funding to do so before. Dr. Isoye said he finds it strange that ISBE never allowed districts to use ALOP dollars for Grades K-2 before, and though it may take a year or so for the dollars to catch up to the numbers, hopefully the pain of that will be less than the pain caused to an expelled student. Mr. Eddy stated that the legislation essentially tells a community that no matter what happens in their district, a student can’t be removed from the classroom. Dr. Isoye replied that it tells a community that the district will support that student. Mr. Eddy said he agrees with that concept but there is more work that needs to be done to guarantee that an alternative is available. Mr. Eddy said ISBE is sending the message that we are second guessing the decision of the districts who expel kindergarteners. Dr. Sanders stated that there are a limited number of things that a student can be expelled for, and what’s on that list is public knowledge. Mr. Eddy said that this legislation means that even if a student does one of the acts on that list, the district should provide an alternative instead of not allowing a student back after due process; he emphasized that never is a long time, and he is uncomfortable with the inflexibility of the language.

Dr. Nugent asked if the banning of expulsions has to be tied to the release of ALOP funding to younger grades. Dr. Sanders replied that they will appear in independent bills and not an omnibus bill. Dr. Sanders confirmed with Mr. Stoerger that they would be separate initiatives, and Mr. Stoerger said yes.

Dr. Nugent asked if the legislation will also state what must be done in the case that a district decides to expel a student. Dr. Sanders answered that the law outlines a more rigid process for expulsion than for a suspension, including presenting the expulsion to the school board and giving an opportunity for a hearing. Dr. Nugent asked if the only option for districts is to remove students that commit these egregious acts. Dr. Sanders said there are other alternatives available to districts under this law. Chair Leak agreed with Dr. Sanders -the goal is not to expel children, so having alternatives is helpful. Dr, Leak is worried about funding because alternative programs can cost a significant amount to school districts. She added that these disciplinary measures affect black and brown children more than others. Dr. Nugent wondered what the deeper issue is behind schools deciding to expel. Dr. Sanders said that we will likely never know in terms of individual cases, but pre-K to second grade are ages in which children do not understand why they are being sent home. He shared that the state has attempted to reduce disparities in discipline and out-of-school suspensions in the past, including with Senate Bill 100 and Public Act 456. However, we are still seeing expulsions for young grades and those students are most often black and brown. Dr. Sanders believes that this is something the Board needs to stand up against. He added that kindergarteners do not have anywhere else to go, and if he can go nine years without expelling a single student in the district in any grade, he does not understand why that cannot be the case for every district. He emphasized his belief that the Board should say that expelling a student in pre-K to second grade is never educationally appropriate. Mr. Eddy restated his concern about the inflexibility in preventing districts from being able to act in a way that they see fit to keep their community safe; he agreed wholeheartedly with the idea that alternatives must be provided, and something must be done besides turning young children away from school. Mr. Eddy stated that the goal is different than what this legislation is accomplishing. He agreed with the sentiment but expressed concern over details and added that not all reactions to Senate Bill 100 were positive due to restrictions on discipline. He stated his long-term concern is the perception of individuals in the district community if the Board allows egregious acts to occur without the option of expulsion. Chair Leak summarized that the language would have to be something along the lines of: “If a pre-K to second grade student has a disciplinary infraction that is egregious enough that it would warrant an expulsion, the district is required to determine an alternative setting for that child as opposed to an expulsion.”

Dr. Chavarria asked Dr. Sanders what he meant when he said that there was no alternative for the kindergarteners who were expelled and where they ended up. Dr. Sanders said we do not know what happened to those two students. Dr. Chavarria asked if this is because after a student is expelled the state has no obligation to ensure they are being educated. Dr. Sanders that is correct under state law: When a student is expelled, they do not have access to education unless the district offers an alternative. Dr. Chavarria stated that she cannot fathom a reason to say that to a student from K-2 and emphasized her support for this legislative agenda item. She added that by saying expulsion is no longer possible, the Board is essentially telling districts that they have a responsibility to ensure that those students have a free education option available to them.

Mr. Eddy requested more data for Grades 1-2 as well and information on possible alternatives. He said he will try to keep an open mind and he doesn’t mean to drag out discussion, but this is a very serious issue to him. Dr. Sanders replied that there have been other instances when lawmakers have stepped in to say a certain practice no longer aligns with their norms, and he believes this is one of those times. He said the ISBE team will come back to the Board with more data, as they have already conducted extensive research on each bill that is not included in the memo, including what other states are doing. Mr. Eddy noted that he liked Chair Leak’s idea of running the bill past district superintendents. Chair Leak said it would be interesting to get feedback even if she is similar in thinking she would never expel a student in Grades K-2. Dr. Sanders said that he had shared this initiative with superintendents he encountered in the field, and he has not yet received any significant pushback. He added that the suspension measure does not take away any rights that currently exist and instead requires that all officials in the district be included in the conversation for out-of-school suspensions. Mr. Eddy agreed with that initiative. Chair Leak said that it is likely common practice in most districts, but this legislation would codify the practice.

Regarding the employe misconduct item, Dr. Sanders reminded the Board that the state passed Faith’s Law and Erin’s Law requiring school districts to share with a next employer if a teacher is removed from the classroom for a particular reason, ISBE is a unique agency in that any charges faced by an educator from ISBE are not made public until everything is finalized. This runs contrary to the new law, which would require school districts to disclose misconduct to future employers. He added that there is an active case in which this is an issue, so the aim of this measure is to close that loophole.

Mr. Eddy confirmed that the employee misconduct measure would just allow school districts to provide employers with information that they likely do not have but would be relevant for them to know under Faith’s Law and Erin’s Law. Dr. Sanders confirmed. Mr. Eddy expressed his approval and commented that all of the information would still be subject to disclosure laws.

Chair Leak clarified with Mr. Stoerger that public disclosure in this case means disclosure to the future employer of the individual in question; Mr. Stoerger said yes. Dr. Sanders added that the information could be accessed through a Freedom of Information Act request. Chair Leak asked Mr. Stoerger if this was true. He confirmed and added that the information would be subject to all other privacy laws that govern those types of documents. Mr. Eddy asked if the document would be heavily redacted. Dr. Sanders said it could be, likening it to what happens when a doctor faces charges through the state medical board. Mr. Eddy said this measure it long overdue and will help keep everyone in the workplace safe.

Dr. Nugent asked how the learning partners measure differs from current practice. Mr. Stoerger stated that currently districts must find their own individual learning partners, and this would allow ISBE to designate the public bodies that exist. Dr. Sanders added that under state power, ROEs and Intermediate Service Centers all have to apply to receive funding as a learning partner, which helps them to fulfill their obligation to be school improvement partners. Ms. Saba shared that under the current system, learning partners must undergo a competitive process to be selected for that purpose and districts select which pre-approved providers they’d like to work with. Dr. Nugent and Chair Leak confirmed this would automatically make ROEs learning partners.

Regarding the school cleanup code measure, Ms. Gonzalez requested clarification on the removal of the requirement to have parental permission for students to remain in English language learner (ELL) services after three years. Ms. Snopek explained that under current law, parental permission is required for an ELL student to continue accessing services after three years, which very few districts are aware of. She further explained that federal law requires ELL services to be offered until the student achieves proficiency. This measure would align state law with federal law.

Regarding the charter school legislative agenda item, Dr. Sanders clarified that there is currently no option for state authorized charter schools to transfer to a local charter or school district.

Mr. Eddy identified a potential discrepancy in the language stating the transfer will only occur if both entities agree to it. but previously it states they will negotiate. Mr. Stoerger responded by saying the negotiation is the agreement. Mr. Eddy commented that if they do not both agree, the issue of charter renewal returns to the state, which gives charter schools the nudge to negotiate with the local districts before it gets to the state. Mr. Eddy expressed his approval for this initiative and the opportunity for the school district to work with charter schools. Dr. Sanders recalled that the original purpose of the charter school law was to drive innovation, so the purpose of this measure is to have charter schools return to local school districts and generate local innovation.

Chair Leak expressed concerns that state-authorized charter schools will not want to go under the control of local school boards because they do not want districts dictating what they do with their state funding. She reaffirmed her desire to address the current system of charter school funding in which funds are withheld from local districts and their schools are penalized to favor the funding of charter schools. She stated her belief that it is a moral issue for the state to target a handful of districts and override local school board decisions to allow for the state-authorized charter schools to be funded. Chair Leak emphasized that all schools in the local school districts should be cared for by the state, including those that have a state-authorized charter school. She acknowledged that charter funding is not on the agenda for the spring session but stated that discussions must be had about this issue. Mr. Stoerger replied that he understands and that allowing state-authorized charter schools to be integrated into the school districts is the first step in that process. Mr. Eddy recalled a conversation from the November Education Policy Planning Committee of the Whole in which they discussed how fixed costs do not decrease when students leave district schools for charter schools and wondered if there was a way to determine what those fixed costs are and have an appropriation for those costs so that money is not lost. Chair Leak agreed. She said that there are schools, like the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, where students come from all over the state and the state pays, but districts with corresponding charter schools that solely draw from their district plead for help from the state and we cannot turn a blind eye. Chair Leak agreed that this is a strong first step, but it is only an option. Charter schools that are flourishing are unlikely to want to negotiate to give the district more control over how they spend their money. She reiterated that Illinois local school districts are not big enough to accommodate this action by the state; if they could afford an additional school, they would have one, but instead the state is forcing them to host an additional school in their community. Dr. Sanders said that Dr. Seaton and his team could conduct further analysis.

Regarding the community college partnerships item, Dr. Nugent asked how it would play out when a community college asks a university to partner with them, noting that many Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) are already struggling. She has concerns about requiring them to form a partnership. Mr. Stoerger replied that before a community college calls upon a university as a partner, a publicly elected body would have to approve the request. Dr. Nugent said she still believes there will be concerns, thinking about her experience as the former chair of an EPP and the questions she would have had about the timeline in which this requirement would need to be met and other priorities that would be a focus within the university. She shared her fear that this would drive some of the smaller EPPs out of the EPP business. Dr. Sanders stated that ISBE ran this bill last year as a Board-approved initiative to allow community colleges to issue without any university partner, but it did not go through because of the fear that it would allow community colleges to issue a bachelor’s degree, which was not the case. He shared that this year they decided to approach the topic in a similar fashion to how high schools partner with community college to run dual-credit programs; this initiative would be for the limited subgroup that already have their bachelor’s degree and would like to complete the necessary additional coursework to get their EPP. Mr. Eddy asked for confirmation that all individuals affected by this bill would already have their bachelor’s degree. Dr. Sanders said that is correct. Mr. Eddy then clarified that without this option, individuals interested in getting their EPP would have to return to a four-year institution, which would be cost prohibitive. He explained that in the dual-credit system at the high school level, high schools must first request partnership from the community college in their region. If the community college refuses, then the high school can approach any community college. Mr. Eddy stated his belief that this is a cost, equity, and access issue but very different than community colleges providing bachelor’s degrees, and there are already other options out of state where people go. Dr. Nugent emphasized her concern about forcing an entity to do something when it is unclear which entity will be selected by each community college. She reflected that when she was the EPP chair, she tried to find an alternative within a four-year institution, but the inside workings of four-year institutions are very complex and it’s likely that they’ll receive mixed messaging on what they can and can’t do.

Mr. Eddy asked if this measure is solely about giving endorsements, not certification. He shared that what is important to him is whether the course has the rigor, and the instructor is qualified, as well as getting people served so that vacancies in districts can be filled.

Dr. Nugent expressed that this is opening a can of worms without requiring accreditation or accountability; right now, there is nothing requiring institutions to have accredited faculty, making the issue larger than it seems. Mr. Eddy stated he understands and shared that the Higher Learning Commission is no longer checking for master’s degrees and is leaving that to the state, suggesting that other indicators are more important. He emphasized that this is an equity issue to help people get their endorsement and fill vacancies in districts. Chair Leak replied that the measure is not solely for endorsements but for the Professional Educator License. Mr. Eddy said that is basically endorsing individuals with a bachelor’s degree. Dr. Nugent said there is a difference between a bachelor’s degree and a PEL, which is the actual license. Mr. Eddy asked Dr. Nugent if this meant that someone with a bachelor’s degree who has not gone through the appropriate steps for certification would be able to get an endorsement through this. Dr. Nugent replied that the Board should be leveraging the alternative licensing program already available and work with community colleges that want to do that. Dr. Sanders commented on an article that Dr. Nugent shared with him where currently individuals seeking their teaching license are encouraged to go to programs out of state, obtain their license there, and then transfer their license to the state of Illinois. He said that this measure is the first step to addressing that issue. Dr. Nugent disagreed that requiring universities to partner with community colleges is the step that needs to be taken to address that critical issue. She added that it would be different to encourage it, but in regions where there is a concentration of four-year institutions, it’s off-putting. The decision is completely at the discretion of the community colleges. Dr. Sanders proposed that the legislation be written so that it is not compulsory for universities to accept the partnership if approached by a community college. Dr. Nugent restated that is the part that she has the most concern with. Dr. Sanders said if the system is modeled after the dual-credit system, then universities would have the right to say yes or no, so the language could reflect that. Mr. Eddy said it is important to have a partnership agreement and thorough process that ISBE approves to oversee the partnership. Dr. Nugent remarked that most institutions would have to jump through political hurdles within the institution to get approval to move forward with any partnership, so it may sometimes be out of their control. Dr. Sanders repeated that the compulsory language can be changed, and Dr. Nugent expressed satisfaction. Mr. Stoerger agreed that the language is not final.

Regarding the student ticketing item, Dr. Sanders reminded the Board that truancy is already an infraction that students cannot be ticketed for and this measure enforces that.

Dr. Nugent asked for an example of someone issuing fines to a student. Dr. Sanders said this issue goes back to Senate Bill 100 and Public Act 456 when the state began to address how schools could discipline a student; when schools no longer felt they could issue a consequence for a certain offense, we began to see an uptick in law enforcement issuing fines to children for similar offenses. He gave the example of smoking on school grounds in which a school has a School Resource Officer (SRO) issue a ticket under a municipal ordinance when they do not feel they can directly discipline the student themselves. Dr. Sanders said that ProPublica and the Chicago Tribune published a piece highlighting how municipalities began to publish ordinances that would outlaw acts that used to be under the purview of school codes of conducts, allowing police to ticket for those infractions.

Mr. Eddy highlighted the other side of the discussion in which school authorities are required to report instances of students breaking the law, with smoking on school grounds being a good example as children are not legally allowed to possess tobacco. He stated that administrators would argue that disciplinary tools were taken away from them, so they reverted to the police since the law is being broken. Mr. Eddy shared that he is confused by the use of the word loophole in this item, as he’s not clear on what the loophole is and would be interested to know more. He continued that he believes that law enforcement should be supported and the law upheld He does not believe that students should be spending time in juvenile court instead of in school, so a balance must be found. He expressed worry that closing the “loophole” would have unintended consequences. Dr. Sanders replied that it may be useful to share the attorney general’s opinion on this matter after they did an investigation into an Illinois school district regarding this matter and uncovered strong findings that this is in violation of the law. Mr. Eddy restated his interest in understanding what the exact loophole is. Ms. Snopek explained that the law currently prohibits school districts from issuing fines in any disciplinary matters, but schools are still able to call upon police officers and SROs who are not school employees to issue fines. This can lead to students having months of court dates and thousands of dollars in fines for simple infractions like possession of a vaping device. Mr. Eddy stated he is still concerned that an SRO who has sworn to uphold the law is being stopped from punishing someone for unlawful behavior. Ms. Snopek said that this measure does not prevent SROs from doing their jobs but instead preventing school personnel from using law enforcement officers to discipline students. Ms. Saba added that there is very clear language included that this measure is not intended to prevent school personnel from referring to law enforcement officers when necessary to protect defense of self, others, and property or required by law. Mr. Eddy confirmed that individuals who have broken the law can still be charged and responsible for their behavior but this would just prevent schools from using law enforcement for school discipline. Ms. Snopek answered yes and clarified that this measure would not stop any police officer or non-employees from the school from enforcing the law. It would just prohibit school personnel from doing something they are already prohibited from doing. Dr. Sanders said the goal is to eliminate the blurriness between two lines and prevent police from being brought in to handle a school issue, even if it is technically a violation of an ordinance. If it is an issue that compels the police to be involved, obviously they should be brought in. Mr. Eddy replied that schools used to handle infractions that were on the line of school offense and an ordinance violation with certain discipline practices, and now that those are not available to schools, this might be the only course of action they have to enforce the law and report violations of the law to law enforcement. Ms. Snopek noted that it was important to remember that Black and brown students are ticketed at a disproportionately high rate. Chair Leak asked if the data reflects that schools with a higher Black and brown population are more likely to have an SRO officer on site or more SROs than schools serving other populations. Ms. Snopek said she did not know, but this bill does not aim to address that issue. Dr. Leak asked if local decision is a factor that is skewing the data, and she additionally wondered if SRO training regarding ticketing should be reexamined. Ms. Snopek reflected that families sending their kids to schools with less ticketing face fewer financial burdens and are able to afford basic necessities because they do not have to pay ticketing fees. Dr. Isoye cautioned that ISBE needs to be careful about associating this issue with SROs because SROs are trained to work with youth, unlike regular law enforcement officers. He encouraged Board members to view this measure through the original lens of closing a loophole. He added that he is sure that the legislative affairs team has already thought through many of these details, but the Board still has many questions because they do not have the research provided to them. He expressed appreciation for everyone’s mindfulness for equity issues and holding that at the center of the conversation. Dr. Sanders added that this legislative agenda is definitely larger than ones presented in the past couple of years, and he appreciates the Board’s consideration. Dr. Nugent asked how these legislative agenda items were chosen, being mindful of public input. Mr. Eddy expressed his appreciation for a lively agenda that provokes deep discussion, acknowledging that everyone will have their own perspectives on each issue. He emphasized that the Board must remember that throughout all of this discussion, they are being watched by the larger community, and they may react by not sending their kids to public school anymore if they don’t take the message well. Dr. Nugent commented that there are 851 school districts so there are bound to be a variety of interests represented.

B. Approval of an Amendment to the ESSA State Plan

Executive Director of Data, Accountability, and Assessment Rae Clementz discussed this item.

Dr. Nugent thanked Ms. Clementz for the thorough planning of upcoming communications detailed in the memo provided to the Board. Ms. Clementz credited her team for including this detail.

6. Upcoming January Board Action

A. Approval of the FY 2026 Board Meeting Calendar

Board Services Coordinator Jo Ireland discussed this item.

There were no additional questions from the Board.

7. New Business: Items for the Next Agenda

Ms. Gonzalez shared her experience attending sessions with Dr. Nugent at the Triple I Conference regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI). Another session attendee stated their desire for ISBE to help districts navigate using and regulating AI in schools. Ms. Gonzalez added that she has personally witnessed the rapid development of AI in other spaces as well, such as during the Multilingual Conference and her time as an educator. She expressed her belief that this is important to address as a state. Dr. Nugent added that she heard similar sentiments at another Triple I session and that a woman who works under former ISBE employee and current IASB employee Jeremy Duffy mentioned partnering with organizations across the state to examine the issue of AI. Dr. Nugent further stated she is personally researching AI within educational institutions with graduate students, and a common theme that has come up is that leaders are seeking guidance on how to address it. Dr. Nugent then highlighted that Chicago Public Schools has already passed a set of guidelines for AI usage. Ms. Gonzalez mentioned that she encountered a group of teachers at a conference that are currently working on conducting surveys regarding AI and will likely approach ISBE in the future for AI-related support. Dr. Sanders said he would work with the ISBE team and discuss providing a presentation or resource to the Board.

8. Next Meeting: Jan. 14, 2025

9. Adjourn

Dr. Nugent made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Gonzalez 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 4:56 p.m.

https://www.isbe.net/Documents_Board_Meetings/121724-EPP-Minutes.pdf