On March 18, 2024, the District 65 School Board entered into a 3-yr “Performance Based Superintendent’s Contract” with Dr. Angel Turner. The contract accommodates eight targets that the School Board will use to consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the Superintendent. Because the targets are used to consider the Superintendent, the targets conceptually set the priorities of the School Board.
Yet, not one of many eight targets accommodates a clear assertion that student efficiency might be improved and never one of many targets accommodates a clear assertion that student achievement might be elevated. In addition, the contract doesn’t specify the symptoms or measures that the Board will use to decide whether or not student efficiency has improved and to decide whether or not student achievement has elevated.
Absent clear targets to enhance student efficiency and student achievement, the contract arguably fails to adjust to Section 10-23.8 of the Illinois School Code. But apart from the query of whether or not or not the contract complies with the college code, it’s unclear why clear targets to enhance student efficiency and increase student achievement usually are not included as targets in the new superintendent’s contract.
While the Board authorised the contract in an open assembly on March 18, the targets weren’t mentioned or debated by the School Board in an open assembly.
On April 15, the RoundTable requested Sergio Hernandez, President of the District 65 School Board and a signer of the contract, whether or not the School Board mentioned the targets and indicators throughout closed session conferences and, if that’s the case when; and if Turner participated in the preparation of the targets in her capability as Interim Superintendent or in her capability as a candidate for the Superintendent place.
The RoundTable requested Hernandez to reply to these and different questions by electronic mail, by telephone or in a gathering no later than midday on April 22. He didn’t reply.
Requirements of Section 10-23.8
Under Section 10-23.Eight of the Illinois School Code, a faculty board might enter right into a multi-yr contract with a superintendent provided that the contract is a “performance-based contract.” The statute mandates that one of these contract “be linked to student performance and academic improvement” and that it “include the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement determined by the school board to measure the performance and effectiveness of the superintendent.”
Under this statute, “No performance-based contract shall be extended or rolled-over prior to its scheduled expiration unless all the performance and improvement goals contained in the contract have been met.”
Shortly after the passage of Section 10-23.8, Marcilene Dutton, J.D., the Associate Executive Director of the Illinois Association of School Administrators, mentioned in an article printed in the Illinois State School Law Quarterly {that a} multi-yr contract with a superintendent “must contain at least two goals (one related to ‘student performance’ and the other related to the ‘academic improvement of the schools within the district’)”; and “there must be indicators or measurements outlined in the agreement on how attainment or non-attainment of the goals will be determined.” *
She supplied examples {that a} “student performance” goal is “student attendance rates shall be increased.” An instance of an “academic improvement goal” is “student standardized testing scores shall improve.” And then, the contract should determine indicators or the measures that the School Board will use in figuring out if the targets are met.*
A have a look at the targets in the superintendent’s contract
The School Board’s efficiency-based mostly contract with Superintendent Turner doesn’t comprise a clearly said goal that student efficiency shall be improved, nor does it comprise a clearly said goal that student achievement shall be improved. In addition, the contract doesn’t specify the symptoms or measures that the Board will use to decide if student efficiency and student achievement have in reality been improved.
Goal #1 of the Superintendent’s contract offers: “Consistently apply an equity lens to systems, policies, and practices to ensure that the most marginalized students have access to high quality education and support services.”
While this sounds good, it’s not a measurable goal. The phrase “most marginalized students” just isn’t outlined and raises quite a few questions: Does it imply college students who rating beneath a sure achievement stage and, if that’s the case, what stage and on what check? Does it embody college students who’ve a incapacity, and, if that’s the case, what incapacity? Does it embody college students who’re English Language Learners and, if that’s the case, what standards are used? Does it embody all college students in sure racial/ethnic teams and, if that’s the case, which of them?
Likewise, the phrase “high quality education and support services” just isn’t outlined. It additionally raises questions: Does it imply grade-stage instruction? Does it imply instruction designed to enhance essential considering expertise, comparable to by means of the usage of considerate questions or instruction that engages college students although productive battle or challenge-based mostly studying; does it imply instruction supplied by a instructor who’s rated “excellent”? And then, how does the District decide if top quality instruction is, in reality, going down in a classroom and in help periods?
And even when these phrases have been outlined, the place is the District now in offering essentially the most marginalized college students top quality schooling and help companies? Where does the District need to be in three years? What measures will the District use to decide if the goal might be met?
None of those questions is answered in the goal assertion, and the goal doesn’t meet the necessities of Section 10-23.Eight because of this alone.
Additionally, the goal doesn’t require that marginalized college students be “provided” a “high quality education” and “supports,” however solely that they be supplied “access;” and it doesn’t require that student efficiency be improved and that student achievement be improved. And the goal doesn’t specify the symptoms or measures that the School Board will use to decide if student efficiency and student achievement are improved.
While Section 10-23-Eight of the School Code doesn’t require that any particular standards be adopted, it does require “improvement related to student and academic performance,” and that the targets be “measurable.” **
The RoundTable requested Board President Hernandez many questions on this goal, together with which college students are included in the phrase “most marginalized students;” what precisely is supposed by “high quality instruction and supports;” what number of “marginalized students” at the moment lack entry to top quality instruction and helps (and why do the at the moment lack entry); what’s the achievement standing of these college students; what are the symptoms that might be used to decide if there may be an increase in the share of marginalized college students being supplied top quality instruction and helps in the subsequent three years; what are the symptoms that might be used to decide if there may be an increase in the tutorial achievement of marginalized college students through the subsequent three years; and what are the measures the School Board will use to decide if student efficiency and tutorial enchancment is improved.
Hernandez didn’t reply.
Goal # 2 offers: “Establish metrics to actively address the racialized gap in opportunity for Black and Brown students to track progress, programs practices and initiatives.”
A goal to “establish metrics” someday in the long run is insufficient. Courts have held {that a} goal in a superintendent’s multi-yr contract to “establish” efficiency and tutorial targets by a specified date in the long run doesn’t meet the necessities of Section 10-23.8. The targets and indicators have to be in the contract when it’s entered into.***
Moreover, the wording of the goal seems to give the Superintendent the authority to set up the “metrics” with out additional approval by the Board. If that’s the case, the Superintendent could be setting the measures to consider her personal efficiency. The RoundTable requested Hernadez if this goal gave the Superintendent the authority to set up the metrics known as for with out Board approval, and he didn’t reply.
And even when the metrics have been established by the Superintendent, there may be no requirement in the contract that the Superintendent meet them. So the goal is to set up the metrics, not to increase student achievement.
Goal Four offers: “Develop thoughtful change management and transition plans for significant District initiatives that address the cultural, social, and emotional as well as the logistical challenges of change. Initiatives include opening of 5th Ward school, middle school dual language expansion, SAP III process and alignment of programs (SpEd, early childhood, TWI).”
This goal is imprecise and never measurable. It doesn’t require that student efficiency be improved, and that student achievement be improved. And once more, it doesn’t specify the symptoms or measures that the School Board will use to decide if student efficiency or tutorial achievement have improved.
Goals 3, and 5 – 8
The remaining targets don’t meet the requirement of Section 10-23.8:
Goal #3: in lieu of residency in the District, the Superintendent shall “be a presence as a leader in the community.”
Goal #5: guarantee sustainable and lengthy-time period monetary well being of the District.
Goal #6: construct relationships and create a tradition of collaboration with ETHS, the City, Northwestern and all employees and institutional companions in the neighborhood.
Goal #7: proceed clear and clear communications to the Board, employees, households and the neighborhood concerning the District’s work.
Goal #8: proceed updating and placing clear operational practices in place to assist alleviate and remove grievances from workers and run the District extra effectively.
None of those is a goal to enhance student efficiency or to enhance student achievement, and there are no indicators to decide if the student efficiency and student achievement have in reality improved.
Even so ….
Aside from the query of whether or not or not the contract complies with the necessities of Section 10-23.8, the contract doesn’t comprise a clearly said goal to increase the efficiency and achievement of Black and Hispanic college students or another group of scholars.
About 18 months in the past, the District adopted eight student achievement targets. One was to increase the share of scholars who met expectations on the Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR) in studying and math from a baseline proportion of 40% to 55% by 2017.
The IAR is run yearly by the Illinois State Board of Education to third by means of eighth graders in the State. ISBE says assembly expectations on the IAR means a student has demonstrated “readiness” for the subsequent grade stage and is “likely on track for college and careers.”
On the 2023 IAR, solely 16% of Black eighth-graders, 20% of Hispanic eighth-graders, 48% of Asian eighth graders, 57% of white eighth graders met expectations in English Language Arts (ELA). The knowledge is extra stark for Black, Hispanic, and Asian eighth graders in math.
The charts beneath present the District’s 2013 IAR outcomes for third and eighth graders on the ELA and math parts of the check.
Many college students are performing beneath ISBE’s grade stage requirements and usually are not on monitor to faculty and profession readiness.
Yet, the School Board didn’t embody a goal to increase the share of Black and Hispanic college students who meet expectations on the IAR in the Superintendent’s contract. Nor did it embody a goal to increase the share of another subgroup of scholars who meet expectations on the IAR.
The Board may have used different measures, comparable to increase the common check scores of scholars on the IAR or one other check in specified grade ranges; increase the share of third graders who’re studying proficiently, measured by specified scores on the IAR or one other standardized check; increase the share of eighth graders who’re on monitor to faculty and profession readiness, utilizing specified scores on the IAR or one other standardized check.
On April 15, the RoundTable requested Hernandez why the School Board didn’t embody a goal in the Superintendent’s contract that the District will increase the share of scholars who meet expectations on the IAR or on another standardized check? Hernandez didn’t reply.
In addition, the School Board’s contract with the new Superintendent doesn’t comprise a clearly said goal to enhance student efficiency. One easy goal could be to cut back the speed of continual truancy of scholars. In 2023, the speed of continual truancy for all college students in the District was 20.8%; for Black college students it was 33.9%, in accordance to the District’s report card on ISBE’s web site.
Absent clearly said targets to increase student efficiency and student achievement, along with measures to use to decide if the targets are met, it’s close to not possible to maintain the Superintendent accountable for student efficiency and achievement.
Prior superintendent contracts
In the three multi-yr contracts that the District 65 School Board entered into with superintendents prior to the one with Dr. Turner, the contracts set measurable targets for student achievement and efficiency, though as time has handed, the Board’s expectations for its superintendents seems to have decreased.
Dr. Goren’s 2017 Contract. On Jan. 23, 2017, the School Board entered right into a 5-yr efficiency-based mostly contract with Superintendent Paul Goren. The contract contained many tutorial achievement and student efficiency targets. The common goal statements included “reducing achievement gaps, with specific focus on k-3 interventions and early literacy;” sustaining “a strong educational vision that includes helping all students be college, career and citizenship ready;” and “providing equal opportunity, equitable outcomes and the best education possible to each student.”
The targets included the implementation of many methods and applications to develop culturally related instructing practices; to rent and retain lecturers from numerous backgrounds; to set up studying communities the place lecturers and directors determine greatest practices centered on centered on tutorial achievement for all and decreasing the achievement hole; and to broaden social and emotional studying applications.
The consequence metrics in Goren’s contract have been pretty complete and set excessive expectations. They have been:
- “Increase the p.c of scholars grades 3-8, assembly 2015 faculty profession readiness benchmarks on MAP [the Measure of Academic Progress test],
- “Decrease the p.c of scholars grades 3-Eight at or beneath the 25th percentile (2015 norms) on MAP,
- “Increase the p.c of scholars grades 4-Eight making anticipated positive aspects (2015 norms) on MAP,
- “Increase the variety of subgroups making development targets (as measured by 2015 faculty readiness benchmarks on MAP) for college kids in grades 3-8,
- “Decrease the percent of students who have more than one ODR (office disciplinary referral) for a major infraction.”
Dr. Horton’s 2019 Contract. In December 2019, the District 65 School Board entered into its first multi-yr contract with Superintendent Devon Horton. That contract ran from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2023. The contract had 5 targets, certainly one of which was an achievement goal that supplied: “Increase student achievement for Black and Latino students and significantly reduce the achievement gap related to college and career readiness for reading and mathematics.”
While there was just one goal with an instructional indicator, it was an indicator that set excessive expectations for college kids.
A second goal supplied: “Ensure access to grade-level, Common Core Standards, aligned instruction and assessments for Tier 1 learning that are cognitively and culturally responsive to improving learning for all students.” There was not an indicator to measure the advance in studying.
The contract additionally supplied that by Oct. 1,2020, “the Superintendent will put together, for evaluation and approval by the Board, refined and/or extra targets and a program for achievement of the targets inside a advisable interval. The program for achievement of the targets may even refine and determine in better element the symptoms of student efficiency and tutorial achievement functions. It is anticipated that this step might be accomplished by no later than December 15, 2020, and that every one targets might be achieved inside the interval as established by the Board in session with the Superintendent … “
Dr. Horton’s 2022 Contract. A second contract was entered into with Horton on March 14, 2022. That contract ran from July 1,2022 to June 30, 2026; thus extending his tenure on the district by three years. This contract accommodates 5 targets, the second of which supplied an achievement goal. It offers: “Lead system-wide professional learning and implementation support of cognitively rigorous and culturally responsive instructional practices.” The “Indicators” for this goal have been: “Culturally responsive curriculum will be adopted for ELA, Math, Science and Social Studies that is written, taught and assessed. At the end of each school year, there will be at least a 3% increase in the number of Black and Latinx students making expected gains in Reading and Math on MAP.”
A goal to meet anticipated positive aspects in studying and math on MAP is, in essence, a goal to protect the established order, together with present achievement gaps. It was a big step backward from the goal to considerably cut back the achievement hole associated to faculty readiness that was contained in Horton’s 2019 contract.
The 2022 contract additionally had a goal associated to student efficiency that centered on creating supportive environments which are intellectually and socially secure for studying. The Indicators have been that the District could have two totally educated restorative observe trainers in every campus and restorative practices might be used correctly District -wide. “At the end of each school year there will be at least a 2% decrease in the number of students experiencing bullying.”
The development in the final 4 superintendent contracts seems to be transferring from a reasonably complete set of indicators in Goren’s 2017 contract that set excessive expectations, to indicators that set decrease expectations in Horton’s 2019 contract and nonetheless decrease ones in his 2022 contracts, and no specific achievement expectations in Turner’s 2024 contract.
FOOTNOTES
* Marcilene Dutton’s article offers extra examples of “student performance” targets: student truancy shall be diminished; student attendance charges shall be elevated; student suspensions shall be diminished; student commencement charges shall be elevated; and student participation in co-curricular actions shall be elevated.
Examples of “academic improvement goals are student academic performance shall be improved; student math performance shall be improved; student reading scores shall improve; student standardized testing scores shall improve; student grade point averages (GPA’s) will be increased.”
And, she says, the contract should embody indicators of measures on how attainment or non-attainment of the targets might be decided.
** Board of Education v. Jackson, 401 Ill. App. 3d 24 (1st Dist. 2011).
*** In Wynn v. Board of Education of School District No. 159, 815 F. Supp. second 1007 (N.D.Ill. 2011), a faculty district entered right into a multi-yr contract with a superintendent that supplied that student efficiency and tutorial enchancment targets shall be “established” by the mutual settlement of the superintendent and the college board at a specified date in the long run. The courtroom held that the contract didn’t meet the necessities on Section 10-23.8 “because that section does not only require that a performance-based contract ‘be linked to student performance and academic improvement.’ It additionally states that the performance goals and indicators must be included in the agreement: ‘Each performance-based contract shall include the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement …. Accordingly, the Contract’s general acknowledgment that ‘[s]tudent performance and academic improvement goals shall be linked to student performance and academic improvement,’ standing alone, does not satisfy the School Code; the Contract instead must actually identify ‘the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement.’” The courtroom held that the contract was void.
See additionally: Hesbol v. Bd. of Educ. 14 F. Supp. third 1101 (N.D. 2014) (“The plain language of the School Code also indicates that the “goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement” have to be in a efficiency-based mostly contract on the time of execution.”).