Illinois State Board of Education Meeting Packet - October ... · The General Assembly will return to Springfield for the Fall Veto Session November 27-29 and December 4-6. 2012 Veto

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Southland College Preparatory Charter School 4601 Sauk Trail, Richton Park, Illinois

Plenary Session

October 29-30, 2012

This meeting will also be audio cast on the Internet at: www.isbe.net

OCTOBER 29, 2012 10:30 – 11:30 a.m. Tour of Southland College Preparatory Charter School Southland College Preparatory Charter School 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Lunch Board Conference Rooms, 2nd Floor

12:30 – 4:00 p.m. Convene Plenary Session

Board Room, 2nd Floor

*4:00 – 6:00 p.m. Budget Hearing Board Room, 2nd Floor

*6:00 p.m. Closed Session (as needed) Board Conference Room, 2nd Floor OCTOBER 30, 2012 8:30 – 12:00 p.m. Reconvene Plenary Session

Board Room, 2nd Floor 12:00 p.m. Closed Session (as needed) Board Conference Room, 2nd Floor * The meeting will begin at the conclusion of the previous session.

This meeting will be accessible to persons with disabilities. Persons planning to attend who need special accommodations should contact the Board office no later than the date prior to the meeting. Contact the Superintendent's office at the State Board of Education. Phone: 217-782-2221; TTY/TDD: 217-782-1900; Fax: 217-785-3972.

NOTE: Chairman Chico may call for a break in the meeting as necessary in order for the Board to go into closed session.

Plenary Packet - Page 1

http://www.isbe.net/


Southland College Preparatory Charter School 4601 Sauk Trail, Richton Park, Illinois

Plenary Session

October 29, 2012

12:30 p.m.

I. Roll Call/Pledge of Allegiance

A. Consideration of and Possible Actions on Any Requests for Participation in Meeting by Other Means

II. Public Participation A. Dr. Blondean Davis, Superintendent, Southland College Preparatory Charter School B. Educator Leadership Institute C. Thornton Fractional South District 215 D. Dr. Donna Simpson Leak, Superintendent, Rich Township High School District 227

III. Resolutions & Recognition

IV. *Superintendent’s Report - Consent Agenda All action consideration items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and will be enacted in one motion and vote. Any board member who wishes separate discussion on any item listed on the consent agenda may remove that item from the consent agenda, in which event, the item will be considered in its normal sequence.

A. *Approval of Minutes: 1. Plenary Minutes: September 19-20, 2012 (pp. 4-12)

B. *Rules for Initial Review 1. Part 30 (Programs for the Preparation of Principals in Illinois) (pp. 13-60)

C. *Rules for Adoption 1. Part 25 (Certification) (pp. 61-90) 2. Part 75 (Agricultural Education Program) (pp. 91-95) 3. Part 140 (Calculation of Excess Cost under Section 18-3 of the School Code) (pp. 96-101)

D. *Contracts and Grants Over $1 Million 1. Award of Contract: PERA Research Based Study (pp.102-105) 2. Recommendation Approval: 21st CCLC RFSP Technical Assistance (pp. 106-109) 3. Award of Grants: 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) (pp.110-129) 4. Other contracts and grants to be determined

End of Consent Agenda

V. Discussion Items A. Budget Update (pp. 130-139) B. District Oversight – Monthly Update C. Other Items for Discussion

October 30, 2012

8:30 a.m.

VI. Reconvene Plenary Session

VII. Presentations/Showcases A. Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Dean, School of Education, University of Michigan – Teacher Preparation

(pp.140-141)


VIII. Discussion Items Continued A. 2012 Adequate Yearly Progress Analysis (pp. 142-154) B. Report Card Update (pp. 155-1-156-77) C. 5Essentials Update (pp. 157-158)

IX. Announcements A. IBHE Liaison Report Dr. Proshanta Nandi B. P-20 Council Liaison Report Joyce Karon C. Superintendent’s/Senior Staff Announcements D. Chairman’s Report E. Member Reports

X. Information Items A. ISBE Fiscal & Administrative Monthly Reports (available online at http://isbe.net/board/fiscal_admin_rep.htm)

XI. Adjourn

This meeting will be accessible to persons with disabilities. Persons planning to attend who need special accommodations should contact the Board office no later than the date prior to the meeting. Contact the Superintendent's office at the State Board of Education. Phone: 217-782-2221; TTY/TDD: 217-782-1900; Fax: 217-785-3972.

NOTE: Chairman Chico may call for a break in the meeting as necessary in order for the Board to go into closed session.


http://isbe.net/board/fiscal_admin_rep.htm

Illinois State Board of Education MINUTES

Annual Board Strategic Planning Session September 19-20, 2012

Eastland Suites & Conference Center 1801 Eastland Drive, Bloomington, IL

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Chairman Chico called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m., followed by roll call and the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Board Members Present Senior Staff Present Others Present

Gery Chico, Chairman Superintendent Koch Gene Wilhoit, CCSSO Steven Gilford, Vice Chairman Nicki Bazer Vinni Hall, Secretary Monique Chism Curtis Bradshaw Don Evans Jim Baumann (participated by phone) Peter Godard Andrea Brown Beth Hanselman David Fields Reyna Hernandez Melinda LaBarre Susie Morrison Melissa Oller David Osta Linda Tomlinson Matt Vanover Robert Wolfe

Swearing in of New Board Member, Curtis Bradshaw Chairman Chico announced that Curtis Bradshaw was recently appointed to the Illinois State Board of Education by Governor Quinn. General Counsel Nicki Bazer administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Bradshaw. Request for Board Members Participation by Phone Chairman Chico announced that Board Member Jim Baumann will be participating by phone, however, he will not be voting during this meeting. Closed Session Motion Dr. Vinni Hall moved that the Board go into closed session under the exceptions set forth in the Open Meetings Act of the State of Illinois as follows:

Section c 1 for the purpose of considering the appointment, employment, compensation, performance or dismissal of an employee;

Section c 11 for the purpose of considering pending or probable litigation against or affecting the Board,

Section c 16 for the purpose of self-evaluation, practices and procedures or professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member,

and

Section c 21 for the purpose of discussing minutes of meetings lawfully closed under the Open Meetings Act.

She further moved that the Board may invite anyone they wish to have included in this closed session. Dr. Fields seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous roll call vote. The Board entered into closed session at 10:10 a.m.

DRAFT

Pending Board Approval


Reconvene The Board reconvened the open session at 12:40 p.m. on September 19, 2012. National Perspective Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, presented a Power Point presentation providing a national perspective overview of the following topics:

• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) • Common Core Implementation/Assessments • Teacher Quality • District Interventions

District Intervention Superintendent Koch noted that we currently have four active Financial Oversight Panels, Cairo School District #1, Proviso Township High School District, East St. Louis School District #189 and North Chicago CUSD #187. Dr. Koch invited Art Culver from East St Louis School District #189 and Dr. Ben Martindale from North Chicago CUSD #187 to speak on the current work that has been occurring in their districts. Both Mr. Culver and Dr. Martindale shared Power Point presentations on the changes that are taking place in their districts. They also discussed the plans for the futures of their respective districts. Mr. Culver and Dr. Martindale’s Power Point presentations are available on our website at: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/board/meetings/2012/sept/packet.pdf Superintendent Koch provided the Board with a background on school district interventions and discussed potential ISBE proposals for the spring 2013 legislative session.

General Counsel Nicki Bazer outlined several statutory options the Board can pursue to help secure the future of the school districts and to enhance state interventions. Board Members expressed interest in developing legislation related to district entrance and exit requirements. Board members also expressed a desire to ensure local community members are consulted regarding Independent Authority membership. General Counsel Bazer stated that Governmental Relations will continue to discuss the legislative needs with internal staff, the education field, and the Board, and will return to the board later this year with specific legislative recommendations. Deputy Superintendent Susie Morrison and Assistant Superintendent Monique Chism will providing at a later date to the Board information regarding potential exit criteria which may include accreditation by a national accrediting organization. Discussion of Fiscal Years 2013 & 2014 Budgets Chief Financial Officer Robert Wolfe summarized the FY 2013 budget and reviewed the FY 2014 budget process. He also presented the agency’s General Revenue Fund appropriations over the past five years. Mr. Wolfe pointed out that from FY 2006 to FY 2009, the Board sought increases in funding and successfully grew Pre-K through 12 education spending by nearly $1.3 billion. Since FY 2009, the cumulative decrease in Pre-K through 12 educations has been $869.5 million. The largest reduction occurred in FY 2011 when the agency’s General Funds appropriation was reduced by $328.3 million when compared to the FY 2010 General Funds appropriation. Since FY 2011, General State Aid has been reduced by $313.6 million dollars. Mr. Wolfe reported that the FY 2013 effective Foundation Level for is $5,733; equal to the Foundation Level for FY 2008. Senior Policy Advisor Jason Hall presented various options to amend the existing General State Aid formula to potentially include in the FY 2014 Board Budget recommendation. The goal of the changes is to redistribute available funds to the districts that are most in need and ensure that funding follows students. Below are the four considerations presented to the Board.


http://www.isbe.state.il.us/board/meetings/2012/sept/packet.pdf

Consideration 1 Eliminate Flat Grant Districts from GSA Formula Grant and Poverty Grant Eligibility Consideration 2 Possible Changes to the Poverty Grant Calculations and Eligibility Consideration 3 Allow the Foundation Level to be set at the Amount the Appropriations Actually Support Consideration 4 Impose a Floor on Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) EAV Amounts Mr. Wolfe also suggested that the Board may want to pursue an overall revision to General State Aid and other funding distribution. This would require a multi-year study of the education and funding needs of school districts. Superintendent Koch, upon direction from the Board, will work with staff to examine funding formulas and develop models for the Board to examine before making decisions regarding possible changes to the funding formulas. Chairman Chico announced that the Retreat would recess until tomorrow morning at 8:45 a.m.

Thursday,

September 20, 2012

RECONVENE/ROLL CALL Mr. Gery Chico, Chairman, reconvened the Board for the plenary session at 8:50 a.m. All board members were present as recorded at the 10:00 a.m. roll call on Tuesday, September 19, 2012. Dr. Christopher Koch, State Superintendent of Education, was also in attendance. Board Members Present Senior Staff Present

Gery Chico, Gery Chico Superintendent Koch Steve Gilford, Vice Chairman Susie Morrison Vinni Hall, Secretary Nicki Bazer Jim Baumann (participated by phone) Monique Chism Curt Bradshaw Don Evans Andrea Brown Peter Godard David Fields Linda Tomlinson Melinda LaBarre Matt Vanover Reyna Hernandez Melissa Oller David Osta Robert Wolfe

LEGISLATIVE

UPDATE & PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF 2012 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Legislative Liaisons Cynthia Riseman and Nicole Wills provided the Board with a summary of items that may be addressed during the 2012 Fall Veto Session and the 2013 Legislative Session. The General Assembly will return to Springfield for the Fall Veto Session November 27-29 and December 4-6. 2012 Veto Session In addition to action on bills the Governor vetoed or amendatorily vetoed over the summer, there are four bills that ISBE staff will be monitoring for potential action during the Veto Session:

• HB 5825 (Chapa LaVia/Steans) moves the Illinois Charter School Commission under the Illinois State Board of Education for


Commission under the Illinois State Board of Education for administrative purposes only. The Commission will maintain its decision-making autonomy but would rely on ISBE to process payroll, assist in procurement related duties and other administrative tasks. HB 5825 has been passed by the Senate, but must still be passed by the House.

• HB 5826 (Chapa LaVia/Steans) is a continuation of ISBE’s efforts to

streamline the School Code provisions and amend or repeal outdated or otherwise problematic provisions of the School Code. HB 5826 has been passed by the Senate, but must still be passed by the House.

• HB 5290 (Cassidy/Steans) further implements the recommendations of the School Bullying Prevention Task Force.

• HB 64 (Pihos) amends the Election Code concerning nominations by

minor political parties. This will impact local schools as they are the local election authorities for school board members.

2013 Spring Session Over the past several months, the Agency’s Governmental Relations staff has been working with Agency divisions to develop legislative proposals for the spring 2013 legislative session. In addition to potential initiatives concerning school district reorganizations and school funding that will be addressed during different discussions, staff has the additional legislative initiatives for the Board’s consideration:

• Obsolete/Duplicative Bill: This initiative would be a continuation of ISBE’s efforts to streamline the School Code provisions and amend or repeal outdated or otherwise problematic provisions of the School Code. ISBE has introduced similar pieces of legislation over the last several years.

• Elimination of the Supplemental General State Aid (SGSA) report: School districts with an Average Daily Attendance of more than 1,000 but less than 50,000 students and that receive SGSA are required to submit an annual report to ISBE on how the funds will be spent.

• Federal Grant Distribution: This proposal would add explicit authority in the State Finance Act [30 ILCS 105] for State Board of Education to process payments for federal grants provided primarily by the United States Department of Education, Agriculture or any other federal agency in subsequent state fiscal year(s).

• Classrooms First Commission: In addition to agency initiatives, staff expects various initiatives to be introduced by the Governor and Lt. Governor’s offices as a result of recommendations from the Classrooms First Commission that was chaired by Lt. Governor Simon.

• SB 7 Trailer Bill: The Illinois Association of School Administrators, the Illinois Education Association and other stakeholders have begun work on a trailer bill that will provide clarification to Senate Bill 7; at this point, language remains in development and encompasses technical drafting error clean-ups, corrections to issues identified during implementation, and some statutory clarification language. It is anticipated that the Senate sponsor will move forward with a bill during the Spring 2013 session.

• FY 14 Budget: Governmental Relations will work with the Budget Staff to develop the FY 14 board recommended budget as well as any substantive funding formula changes requested by the Board.


REFORM AGENDA UPDATE

Susie Morrison, Deputy Superintendent/Chief Education Officer reviewed with the Board the adopted mission goals of the State Board of Education. Mission

The Illinois State Board of Education will provide leadership, assistance, resources and advocacy so that every student is prepared to succeed in careers and postsecondary education, and share accountability for doing so with districts and schools.

Goals

1. Every Student will demonstrate academic achievement and be prepared for success after high school.

2. Every student will be supported by highly prepared and effective teachers and school leaders.

3. Every school will offer a safe and healthy learning environment for all students.

Ms. Morrison updated the Board on the Illinois Education Reform Initiatives including:

• Implementation of Common Core State Standards and new assessments.

• Teacher and Leader Effectiveness • Statewide System of Support • Race to the Top • Longitudinal Data System (LDS)

(For a detailed list of the status on each initiative see pages 14-16 of the 2012 Board Retreat Packet.) In closing, Ms. Morrison commented that the area we want to be looking at in the next year is making sure we are defining college and career readiness appropriately.

RETREAT DEBRIEFING

Superintendent Koch requested that Board Members complete a Retreat Survey to obtain direction for future Board Retreats.

Plenary Session PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION Chairman Chico recognized and welcomed Amy Jo Clemens, regional superintendent for Lee and Ogle Counties. Gwen Seeley-Joosse, Regional Project Director from LearningAlly (formerly Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic) shared a brief report on the program, and requested continued funding in FY 2014. Cynthia Wood, Illinois Association of School Boards discussed the organization’s concerns regarding the potential suspension of local school board elections when an Independent Authority is in place. Ms. Wood noted that the Illinois Association of School Board has been working with the ISBE on these issues and they continue to look forward to doing so. John Moss from Glenbard School District in DuPage County updated the Board on the happenings in Glenbard District. Mr. Moss commented that most of the meetings in his school district have been about the implementation of SB 7. He


also reported that he is present to take any questions regarding the School District’s waiver application. Mr. Moss said the state aid formula change is of concern to Glenbard and they would like to be a part of the discussion. The district is mainly concerned with any possible pension cost-shift that may take place. Peg Agnos of the Legislative Education Network of DuPage and SCOPE commented on General State Aid. She is concerned about the appropriation level over the past several years, and encouraged the Board to request additional state aid funding from the General Assembly.

RESOLUTIONS & RECOGNITION

Dr. Hall moved that the Illinois State Board of Education adopt the resolution recognizing Lanita J. Koster, Former Board Member of the Illinois State Board of Education for her commitment to the Board and her numerous contributions to the field of education. Dr. Fields seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous voice vote.

PRESENTATIONS AND UPDATES

Illinois Shared Learning Environment Superintendent Koch reported that in 2011 a major multi-state initiative, the Shared Learning Collaborative (SLC), was launched to address the problem of education being “data rich” and “information poor”. The SLC was formed by CCSSO, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation with the goal of creating a shared technology infrastructure to support the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and help states and districts provide teachers with the instructional data and tools they need. Five states – Illinois, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina – were selected to be first to pilot this exciting new technology. Several years prior to the creation of the SLC, Illinois had created a plan to develop a similar platform statewide to use technology to better enable personalized instruction across the entire P20 spectrum. This plan was put on hold when Illinois was not awarded the first two rounds of Race to the Top; however, the planning the state had already put into deploying such a technology made Illinois a logical choice to pilot the SLC. Superintendent Koch introduced Chief Performance Officer, Peter Godard and Project Manager, Brandon Williams. Mr. Godard noted that technology is one of the six priority areas that are being focused on at the national level. Mr. Godard said it is one of the agency’s goals to find a way to make use of the data that is collected by school districts. The State’s roll out of this technology is called the Illinois Shared Learning Environment Project (ISLE). ISLE will build upon the foundation provided by SLC, bringing the advantages of a standards-based, open-source, multi-state collaborative to Illinois, while still providing a platform to add Illinois-specific resources and applications that will ultimately address the needs of students and educators across the entire P-20 spectrum in Illinois. Mr. Williams explained how ISLE will stretch across states and have millions of users. It will help our students, teachers and stakeholders by making sure that all the information we know about students is used to help personalize their learning throughout their learning experience. The goal of ISLE is simple: to provide a major leap forward in improving student outcomes by enabling more personalized instruction. ISLE will provide a common language that links assessments, courses, content, and applications together and to common core standards; and it will offer a common platform that directs teachers and students to a world of digital content based on the very


specific needs of the individual student.

Currently, ISLE is being piloted in District 87 and Unit 5, giving us the first chance to see ISLE at work in the classroom and plan for its broader roll-out.

Over the next several months, ISBE and other ISLE project partners (including NIU and SIU) will be conducting focus groups to assess needs of other P-20 stakeholders that will shape the requirements for ISLE moving forward.

In early 2013, the agency will begin expanding infrastructure to scale ISLE to a total of 36 Race to the Top districts (and potentially more), and will also start developing and procuring additional applications to round out the offering for educators.

By 2015-2016 the agency would like to have much wider adoption by districts throughout the State in order to bring the tools, resources, and content needed to help enable personalized learning into the classroom in the most efficient and educator-friendly way possible.

Information regarding the development of ISLE is being communicated to the field (primarily RttT districts). More information will be forthcoming.

P-20 COUNCIL Joyce Karon, P-20 Council liaison, reported that the P-20 Council held its meeting on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at Harper College in Palatine. Ms. Karon shared the highlights of the meeting: Longitudinal Data System Updates

• The Council is currently working on the new Early Childhood Data Initiatives and combining that with the new Kindergarten Individual Development Survey (KIDS). They continue to work on the Unified Early Childhood Data System that will unify all their early childhood information together.

• Work continues to go on with the Workforce Data Quality Initiative.

CONSENT AGENDA Motion: Dr. Fields moved that the State Board of Education hereby approves the consent agenda items as presented. Ms. LaBarre seconded the motion and it passed with unanimous roll call vote. 7-0

The following motions were approved by action taken in the consent agenda motion. Approval of Minutes The State Board of Education hereby approves the minutes for the August 16, 2012 Board meeting. Rules for Initial Review Part 24 (Standards for All Teachers)

Rules for Adoption Part 60 (The “Grow Your Own” Teacher Education Initiative) Part 65 (The New Teacher Induction and Mentoring) Contracts & Grants Over $1 Million Recommendation Approval RFSP Center for School Improvement The State Board hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to enter into a


contract with American Institutes for Research the successful bidder for the Center for School Improvement. The initial contract term is one year through June 30, 2013 with 4 possible renewal terms. The initial contract term will not exceed $9,999,935, and the total contract and all renewals will not exceed $65,868,443.

Request to Release a Request for Sealed Proposals Monitoring of Early Childhood Block Grant Prevention Initiative Programs The State Board hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to release a Request for Sealed Proposals (RFSP) for the purpose of entering into a contract for the provision of on-site monitoring and evaluation of programs funded under the Early Childhood Block Grant’s Prevention Initiative (Birth to Age Three). The contract will extend from the date of the contract’s execution until June 30, 2017 and will not exceed $2,400,000.

Fall 2012 Waiver Report The State Board of Education hereby forwards the following waiver requests to the General Assembly with recommendations for legislative disapproval:

• The request from Bureau Valley CUSD 340 (WM100-5656) to admit nonresident students whose parents are full-time district employees, at a tuition rate of $250-$1,000, such rate to be set annually by the board, and with the board also claiming the average daily attendance of such students on the State Aid Claim.

• The request from Marshall CUSD C-2 (WM100-5671) to admit

nonresident students whose parents are full-time district employees at a tuition rate of $3,000 (such rate representing the difference between the State Aid per student rate and the district’s per capita tuition charge), and with the board also claiming average daily attendance of such students on the State Aid Claim.

The State Board of Education hereby forwards the remaining 42 waiver requests summarized in the Fall 2012 Waiver Report to the General Assembly without comment.

END OF THE CONSENT AGENDA

CLOSED SESSION/ RECOVENE

Dr. Hall 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:

Section c 1 for the purpose of considering the appointment, employment, compensation, performance or dismissal of an employee; Section c 11 for the purpose of considering pending or probable litigation against or affecting the Board, Section c 16 for the purpose of self-evaluation, practices and procedures or professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member, and Section c 21 for the purpose of discussing minutes of meetings lawfully closed under the Open Meetings Act. 7-0


I further move that the Board may invite anyone they wish to have included in this closed session. Dr. Fields seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous roll call vote. The Board entered into closed session at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened from closed session at 1:50 p.m.

APPROVAL OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES

Dr. Brown 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 from May 2012 through August 16, 2012; and the record shall show that no closed session was held in July 2012.

Therefore, I move that the State Board of Education certifies that the need for confidentiality still exists for the closed session minutes for the time period reviewed. Further, the State Board of Education approves the destruction of all closed session verbatim recordings prior to March 17, 2011. Dr. Fields seconded the motion and it passed with a previous unanimous roll call vote. 7-0

SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT RENEWAL

Dr. Hall moved that the State Board of Education hereby approves the Superintendents Employment Agreement as discussed in executive session and authorizes the Chairman to execute such an agreement on the Boards behalf. Ms. LaBarre seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous roll call vote. 7-0. Chairman Chico asked Mr. Gilford to explain the terms of Superintendent Koch’s Contract Renewal. Mr. Gilford stated that the Board has agreed to renew Superintendents Koch’s contract from September 8, 2012 to February 1, 2015. Dr. Koch’s salary for the first contract year is $198,000 with subsequent increases contingent on positive evaluation ratings. The contract requires the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to approve all out-of-state travel; outlines termination guidelines; and outlines the award and use of approved time off.

INFORMATION ITEMS

Chairman Chico announced that the Monthly Fiscal and Administrative Reports are now available on line at www.isbe.net/board/fiscal_admin_rep.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT

Dr. Fields moved that the meeting be adjourned. Dr. Hall seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 1:59 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dr. Vinni Hall Mr. Gery J. Chico

Board Secretary Chairman


http://www.isbe.net/board/fiscal_admin_rep

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING October 29-30, 2012

TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Linda Tomlinson, Assistant Superintendent Agenda Topic: Action Items: Proposed Amendments for Initial Review: Part 30 (Programs for the Preparation of Principals in Illinois) Materials: Recommended Rules Staff Contacts: Vicki Phillips, Division Administrator Purpose of Agenda Item The purpose of this agenda item is to present the proposed amendments for the Board’s initial review. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan This proposal relates to Goal 2 (highly prepared and effective teachers and school leaders), as it addresses a set of rules governing programs that prepare candidates to become Illinois school principals. Expected Outcome of Agenda Item The Board will be asked to adopt a motion authorizing solicitation of public comment on the proposed amendments. Background Information (repeat from earlier Board packet) This set of proposed amendments addresses statutory changes made by P.A. 97-607, effective August 6, 2011. P.A. 97-607 repealed (or will repeal next year) much of Article 21 in the School Code, which addresses educator certification. The law establishes the Illinois licensure system, beginning July 1, 2013; requirements for that system are set forth in new Article 21B. Most of the changes in this rulemaking are technical in nature, including updating statutory citations, revising the name of the licensure board, and modifying requirements in the principal preparation program to conform to the new law. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: the proposed changes summarized below are presented in the order in which they appear in the rulemaking. Multiple sections: References to Section 21-7.1 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/21-7.1, Administrative Certificate] were changed to Section 21B-60 [105 ILCS 5/21B-60, Principal Preparation Programs]. References to Section 21-21 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/21-21, Definitions; granting of recognition; regional accreditation] were changed to Section 21B-105 [105 ILCS 5/21B-105, Granting of recognition; regional accreditation; definitions].


Section 30.20, Purpose and Applicability: Language was changed to reflect that program candidates will obtain a Professional Educator License in place of an administrative certificate. Section 30.40, Internship Requirements: References to ‘certified’ staff were changed to ‘licensed’ staff. The requirements for the principal of a school serving as an internship site were amended to require the holding of a general administrative endorsement on a Professional Educator License in place of an administrative certificate. Section 30.40(d) was also amended to state that program candidates must pass the assessment required under Section 24A-3 of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/24A-3) before commencing the internship. In addition, candidates must pass the applicable content-area test before beginning the last semester of internship. Section 30.50, Coursework Requirements: References to “certified” staff were changed to “licensed” staff. Section 30.60, Staffing Requirements: Section 30.60(f) was amended to state that full-time faculty members and faculty supervisors must pass the assessment required under Section 24A-3 of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/24A-3) required for the evaluation of licensed personnel. Section 30.70, Candidate Selection: The criteria for candidates’ minimum requirements were amended to replace references to teaching certificates with Professional Educator Licenses. Section 30.80, Program Approval and Review: Qualifications for individuals serving on the Principal Preparation Review Panel were amended to require licenses in lieu of certificates, and to require the appropriate endorsements on a Professional Educator License in place of administrative certificates. References to the STCB were changed to the SEPLB. An alternate for the individual representing the Illinois business community on the Panel will be allowed. Pros and Cons of Various Actions This set of proposed amendments updates existing requirements to conform agency rules to state law. Not proceeding with the rulemaking would result in public policy not being set forth in the rules, which could lead to challenges by applicants and others to the agency’s authority to prescribe such standards. Superintendent’s Recommendation The State Superintendent recommends that the State Board of Education adopt the following motion:

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

Programs for the Preparation of Principals in Illinois (23 Illinois Administrative Code 30) Including publication of the proposed amendments in the Illinois Register.

Next Steps


With the Board’s authorization, staff will submit the proposed amendments to the Administrative Code Division for publication in the Illinois Register to elicit public comment. Additional means, such as the Superintendent’s Weekly Message and the agency’s website, will be used to inform interested parties of the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking.


ILLINOIS REGISTER

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SUBTITLE A: EDUCATION

CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SUBCHAPTER b: PERSONNEL

PART 30

PROGRAMS FOR THE PREPARATION OF PRINCIPALS IN ILLINOIS Section 30.10 Definitions 30.20 Purpose and Applicability 30.30 General Program Requirements 30.40 Internship Requirements 30.45 Assessment of the Internship 30.50 Coursework Requirements 30.60 Staffing Requirements 30.70 Candidate Selection 30.80 Program Approval and Review 30.APPENDIX A Internship Assessment Rubric AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Section 21B-60 21-7.6 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/21B-60 21-7.6]. SOURCE: Old Part repealed at 29 Ill. Reg. 18439, effective October 31, 2005; new Part adopted at 35 Ill. Reg. 9060, effective June 1, 2012; amended at 37 Ill. Reg. _______, effective ______________ Section 30.10 Definitions As used in this Part:

“Adjunct faculty” means part-time faculty who are not full-time employees of the institution. “Dispositions” means professional attitudes, values and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues and communities.


ILLINOIS REGISTER



“Educational unit” means the college, school, department, or division of an institution or not-for-profit entity that is primarily responsible for the initial and continuing preparation of teachers and other education professionals. “Faculty” means either professional education staff employed at an institution or staff members employed by not-for-profit entities in principal preparation programs who provide instruction to candidates. “Faculty Supervisor” means a faculty member employed on a full-time or part-time basis in a principal preparation program who supervises candidates during the internship period. "Internship" means a candidate’s placement in public or nonpublic schools for a sustained, continuous, structured and supervised experience lasting no more than 24 months, during which the candidate engages in experiences and leadership opportunities to demonstrate proficiencies in required competencies expected of a principal. (Also see Section 30.40(g) of this Part.) “Institution” means a regionally accredited institution of higher learning as specified in Section 21B-105 21-21 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/21B-105 21-21]. (Also see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.10 (Accredited Institution).) “Mentor” means the principal of the public or nonpublic school in which a candidate is placed who works directly with the candidate on the day-to-day activities associated with the principal’s role as the school leader. “Nonpublic school” means a school recognized in accordance with 23 Ill. Adm. Code 425 (Voluntary Registration and Recognition of Nonpublic Schools) and meeting the staffing requirements set forth in 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.65(b) (Alternative Certification). “Not-for-profit entity” means an entity that is subject to the General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986 [805 ILCS 105] or incorporated as a not-for-profit entity in another state but registered to do business in the State of Illinois pursuant to the Business Corporation Act of 1983 [805 ILCS 5] and that is recognized to provide an educator preparation program in the State of Illinois pursuant to 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.Subpart C (Approving Programs that Prepare Professional Educators in the State of Illinois). “Partner” means one or more institutions, not-for-profit entities, school districts or nonpublic schools that jointly design, implement and administer the principal preparation


ILLINOIS REGISTER



program. For the purposes of this Part, “partners” do not include school districts and their schools or nonpublic schools that serve only as sites for candidates to complete internship requirements or field experiences. “Program completers” means persons who have met all the requirements of a State-approved principal preparation program established pursuant to Section 21-7.6 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/21-7.6] and this Part and who have fulfilled the requirements for receipt of a principal endorsement set forth in Section 21B-60 21-7/.1 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/21B-60 21-7.1] and 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.337 (Principal Endorsement). (Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. _______, effective ______________)

Section 30.20 Purpose and Applicability

a) This Part sets forth the requirements for the approval of programs to prepare individuals to be highly effective in leadership roles to improve teaching and learning and increase academic achievement and the development of all students [105 ILCS 5/21B-60 21-7.1].

b) Requirements of this Part are in addition to the requirements for the approval of

new educator preparation programs set forth in 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.Subpart C. Any program offered in whole or in part by a not-for-profit entity also must be approved by the Board of Higher Education [105 ILCS 5/21B-60 21-7.1].

c) Candidates successfully completing a principal preparation program shall obtain

a principal endorsement on a Professional Educator License an administrative certificate and are eligible to work as a principal or an assistant principal or in related or similar positions assistant or associate superintendent, and junior college dean (Section 21B-60 21-7.1 of the School Code; also see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.337).

d) No later than September 1, 2014, all programs for the preparation of principals

shall meet the requirements set forth in this Part. e) Beginning September 1, 2012, institutions or not-for-profit entities may admit

new candidates only to principal preparation programs that have been approved under this Part.


ILLINOIS REGISTER



(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. _______, effective ______________)

Section 30.30 General Program Requirements

a) The program shall be jointly established by one or more institutions or not-for-profit entities and one or more public school districts or nonpublic schools.

b) The responsibility and roles of each partner in the design, implementation and

administration of the program shall be set forth in a written agreement signed by each partner. The written agreement shall address at least the following:

1) the process and responsibilities of each partner for the selection and

assessment of candidates; 2) the establishment of the internship and any field experiences, and the

specific roles of each partner in providing those experiences, as applicable;

3) the development and implementation of a training program for mentors

and faculty supervisors that supports candidates’ progress during their internships in observing, participating, and demonstrating leadership to meet the 13 critical success factors and 36 associated competencies outlined in “The Principal Internship: How Can We Get It Right?” (Southern Regional Education Board, 2005; http://publications.sreb.org/2005/05V02_Principal_Internship.pdf). No later amendments to or edition of this document are incorporated by this Part;

4) names and locations of non-partnering school districts and nonpublic

schools where the internship and any field experiences may occur; and 5) the process to evaluate the program, including the partnership, and the role

of each partner in making improvements based on the results of the evaluation.

c) Each program shall meet the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: Interstate

School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) 2008, adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration and posted at http://npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf


http://publications.sreb.org/2005/05V02_Principal_Internship.pdf

http://npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf

http://npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf

ILLINOIS REGISTER



http://www.npbea.org/projects.php. No later amendments to or editions of these standards are incorporated by this Part.

d) Each program shall offer curricula that address student learning and school improvement and focus on: 1) all grade levels (i.e., preschool through grade 12);

2) the role of instruction (with an emphasis on literacy and numeracy),

curriculum, assessment and needs of the school or district in improving learning;

3) the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards (23 Ill. Adm. Code 24

(Standards for All Illinois Teachers)); 4) all students, with specific attention on students with special needs (e.g.,

students with disabilities, English language learners, gifted students, students in early childhood programs); and

5) collaborative relationships with all members of the school community (e.g., parents, school board members, local school councils or other governing councils, community partners).

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. _______, effective ______________)

Section 30.40 Internship Requirements

a) The internship portion of the program shall be conducted at one or more public or nonpublic schools so as to enable the candidate to be exposed to and to participate in a variety of school leadership situations in settings that represent diverse economic and cultural conditions and involve interaction with various members of the school community (e.g., parents, school board members, local school councils or other governing councils, community partners).

1) The internship shall consist of the following components:

A) Engagement in instructional activities that involve teachers at all

grade levels (i.e., preschool through grade 12), including teachers


http://www.npbea.org/projects.php

ILLINOIS REGISTER



in general education, special education, bilingual education and gifted education settings;

B) Observation of the hiring, supervision and evaluation of teachers,

other licensed certified staff, and nonlicensed noncertified staff, and development of a professional development plan for teachers; and

C) Participating in leadership opportunities to demonstrate that the

candidate meets the required competencies described in Section 30.45 of this Part.

2) The internship shall not include activities that are not directly related to

the provision of instruction at the school (e.g., supervision of students during lunch or recess periods, completion of program coursework).

3) The internship shall require the candidate to work directly with the mentor

observing, participating in, and taking the lead in specific tasks related to meeting the critical success factors and essential competencies referenced in Section 30.30(b)(3) of this Part.

b) A public or nonpublic school may serve as an internship site if:

1) the principal of the school: A) holds a valid and current general administrative or principal

endorsement on a professional educator license administrative certificate endorsed for general administrative or principal pursuant either to 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.335 or 25.337; or

B) if the internship site is located in another state, holds a valid and

current administrative certificate or license that is comparable to the required Illinois general administrative or principal endorsement on a professional educator license administrative certificate issued by the state in which the internship site is located; or

C) in the case of a nonpublic school, either holds a valid and exempt

Illinois professional educator license administrative certificate that


ILLINOIS REGISTER



is registered and endorsed for general administrative or principal or meets the requirements of subsection (b)(1) of this Section.

2) In all cases, the principal shall have three years of successful experience as

a building principal as evidenced by relevant data, including data supporting student growth in two of the principal’s previous five years, and formal evaluations or letters of recommendation from former supervisors.

c) Each program shall assign a faculty member to serve as faculty supervisor for the

internship portion of the program, provided that the individual assigned meets the requirements of subsection (b) of this Section. Faculty supervisors shall:

1) conduct at least four face-to-face meetings with the mentor at the

internship site of each candidate; 2) observe, evaluate and provide feedback at least four times a year to each

candidate about the candidate’s performance;

3) host three seminars each year for candidates to discuss issues related to student learning and school improvement arising from the internship; and

4) work in collaboration with site mentors to complete the assessment of the candidate’s performance during the internship as required pursuant to Section 30.45 of this Part.

d) Programs shall ensure that each candidate:

1) successfully completes the training and passes the assessment required

under Section 24A-3 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/24A-3] before beginning his or her internship; and

2) passes the applicable content-area test (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.710

(Definitions)) prior to beginning the last semester of his or her internship before completion of the internship.

e) Programs may charge fees of candidates, in addition to tuition, to be used to

reimburse schools for the costs of employing substitute teachers for candidates


ILLINOIS REGISTER



who are full-time teachers and must be absent from their classrooms in order to complete internship activities.

f) Programs may provide monetary stipends for candidates while they are

participating in their internship.

g) A program may extend the length of an internship beyond 24 months for any candidate who has to discontinue the internship portion of the program due to unforeseen circumstances, such as a medical or family emergency, provided that the program adopts procedures for requesting the exemption, the specific reasons under which the exemption would be granted, and the length of time within which a candidate must resume the internship. A copy of the policy shall be provided to each candidate who enrolls in the program.

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. _______, effective______________)

Section 30.45 Assessment of the Internship

a) The principal preparation program shall rate each candidate’s level of knowledge and abilities gained and dispositions demonstrated as a result of the candidate’s participation in the internship required under Section 30.40 of this Part. The candidate shall demonstrate competencies listed in subsections (a)(1) through (4) of this Section by the completion during the course of the internship of the tasks specified.

1) The candidate conveys an understanding of how the school’s mission and

vision affect the work of the staff in enhancing student achievement. He or she understands and is able to perform activities related to data analysis and can use the results of that analysis to formulate a plan for improving teaching and learning. As evidence of meeting this competency, the candidate shall:

A) review school-level data, including, but not limited to, State

assessment results or, for nonpublic schools, other standardized assessment results; use of interventions; and identification of improvement based on those results;


ILLINOIS REGISTER



B) participate in a school improvement planning (SIP) process, including a presentation to the school community explaining the SIP and its relationship to the school’s goals; and

C) present a plan for communicating the results of the SIP process and

implementing the school improvement plan.

2) The candidate demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the process used for hiring staff who will meet the learning needs of the students. The candidate presents knowledge and skills associated with clinical supervision and teacher evaluation, including strong communication, interpersonal and ethics skills. The candidate can apply Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning (2011) posted at www.learningforward.org/standards/index.cfm. No later amendments to or editions of these standards are incorporated by this Section. As evidence of meeting this competency, the candidate shall:

A) create a job description, including development of interview

questions and an assessment rubric, participate in interviews of candidates, make recommendations for hiring (i.e., rationale for action and supporting data), and prepare letters for candidates not selected;

B) participate in a model evaluation of a teacher, to include at least

notes, observations, student achievement data, and examples of interventions and support, as applicable, based on the evaluation results, with the understanding that no candidate will participate in the official evaluation process for any particular teacher; and

C) create a professional development plan for the school to include

the data used to develop the plan, the rationale for the activities chosen, options for participants, reasons why the plan will lead to higher student achievement, and a method for evaluating the effect of the professional development on staff.

3) The candidate demonstrates the ability to understand and manage

personnel, resources and systems on a schoolwide basis to ensure adequacy and equity, including contributions of the learning environment to a culture of collaboration, trust, learning and high expectations; the


http://www.learningforward.org/standards/index.cfm

ILLINOIS REGISTER



impact of the budget and other resources on special-needs students, as well as the school as a whole; and management of various systems (e.g., curriculum, assessment, technology, discipline, attendance, transportation) in furthering the school’s mission. As evidence of meeting this competency, the candidate shall:

A) investigate two areas of the school’s learning environment (i.e.,

professional learning community, school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership, school leadership teams, cultural proficiency, curriculum, and school climate), to include showing connections among areas of the learning environment, identification of factors contributing to the environment’s strengths and weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement of areas determined to be ineffective;

B) analyze the school’s budget, to include a discussion of how

resources are used and evaluated for adequacy and effectiveness; recommendations for improvement; and the impact of budget choices, particularly on low-income students, students with disabilities, and English language learners; and

C) review the mission statement for the school, to include an analysis

of the relationship among systems that fulfill the school’s mission, a description of two of these systems (i.e., curriculum, instruction, assessment, discipline, attendance, maintenance, and transportation) and creation of a rating tool for the systems, and recommendations for system improvement to be discussed with the school’s principal.

4) The candidate demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements

for, and development of, individualized education programs pursuant to 23 Ill. Adm. Code 226.Subpart C (The Individualized Education Program (IEP)), individual family service plans (IFSP) pursuant to 23 Ill. Adm. Code 226 and 34 CFR 300.24 (2006), and plans under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), including the ability to disaggregate student data, as well as employ other methods for assisting teachers in addressing the curricular needs of students with disabilities. The candidate can work with school personnel to identify English language learners (ELLs) and administer the appropriate program and


ILLINOIS REGISTER



services, as specified under Article 14C of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/Art. 14C] and 23 Ill. Adm. Code 228 (Transitional Bilingual Education) to address the curricular and academic needs of English language learners. As evidence of meeting this competency, the candidate shall:

A) use student data to work collaboratively with teachers to modify

curriculum and instructional strategies to meet the needs of each student, including ELLs and students with disabilities, and to incorporate the data into the School Improvement Plan;

B) evaluate a school to ensure the use of a wide range of printed,

visual, or auditory materials and online resources appropriate to the content areas and the reading needs and levels of each student (including ELLs, students with disabilities, and struggling and advanced readers);

C) in conjunction with special education and bilingual education

teachers, identify and select assessment strategies and devices that are nondiscriminatory to be used by the school, and take into consideration the impact of disabilities, methods of communication, cultural background, and primary language on measuring knowledge and performance of students leading to school improvement;

D) work with teachers to develop a plan that focuses on the needs of

the school to support services required to meet individualized instruction for students with special needs (i.e., students with IEPs, IFSPs, or Section 504 plans, ELLs, and students identified as gifted);

E) proactively serve all students and their families with equity and

honor and advocate on their behalf, ensuring an opportunity to learn and the well-being of each child in the classroom;

F) analyze and use student information to design instruction that

meets the diverse needs of students and leads to ongoing growth and development of all students; and


ILLINOIS REGISTER



G) recognize the individual needs of students and work with special education and bilingual education teachers to develop school support systems so that teachers can differentiate strategies, materials, pace, levels of complexity, and language to introduce concepts and principles so that they are meaningful to students at varying levels of development and to students with diverse learning needs.

5) A principal preparation program shall rate a candidate’s demonstration of

having achieved the competencies listed in this subsection (a)(1) through (3) as “meets the standards” or “does not meet the standards” in accordance with Section 30.Appendix A of this Part.

A) A candidate must achieve a “meets the standards” on each

competency in order to successfully complete the internship.

B) A candidate who fails to achieve a “meets the standards” on any of the three areas of competency may repeat the tasks associated with the failed competency at the discretion of the principal preparation program.

b) Each candidate shall participate in, and demonstrate mastery of, the 36 activities

listed in Appendix 3 of the document referenced in Section 30.30(b)(3) of this Part. The principal preparation program shall implement a process to assess both the candidate’s understanding of school practices that foster student achievement and his or her ability to provide effective leadership. The assessment process and any rubrics to be used shall be submitted as part of the program’s application for approval under Section 30.80 of this Part.

1) Programs shall ensure that each candidate demonstrates the participation

level in 100 percent of the activities associated with the critical success factors described and defined in Section 30.30(b)(3) of this Part.

2) The assessment shall at least determine at what point a candidate

demonstrates leadership in conducting the activities. Each candidate must demonstrate leadership in at least 80 percent of the activities associated with the critical success factors described and defined in Section 30.30(b)(3) of this Part in order to successfully complete the internship.


ILLINOIS REGISTER



(Source: Amended at 36 Ill. Reg. 6819, effective April 23, 2012)

Section 30.50 Coursework Requirements

a) The coursework required by the preparation program of its candidates must cover each of the following areas:

1) State and federal laws, regulations and case law affecting Illinois public

schools;

2) State and federal laws, regulations and case law regarding programs for students with disabilities and English language learners;

3) use of technology for effective teaching and learning and administrative

needs;

4) use of a process that determines how a child responds to scientific, research-based interventions that are designed to screen students who may be at risk of academic failure; monitor the effectiveness of instruction proposed for students identified as at risk; and modify instruction as needed to meet the needs of each student;

5) understanding literacy skills required for student learning that are

developmentally appropriate (early literacy through adolescent literacy), including assessment for literacy, developing strategies to address reading problems, understanding reading in the content areas, and scientific literacy;

6) understanding numeracy skills and working collaboratively across content

areas to improve problem-solving and number sense at all grade levels;

7) identification of bullying; understanding the different types of bullying behavior and its harm to individual students and the school; and the importance of teaching, promoting and rewarding a peaceful and productive school climate; and

8) the process to be used to evaluate licensed certified staff in accordance

with the provisions of Section 24A-3 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/24A-3].


ILLINOIS REGISTER



b) A portion of the required coursework shall include “field experiences”, i.e.,

multiple experiences that are embedded in a school setting and relate directly to the core subject matter of the course. The principal preparation program shall determine the courses for which completion of field experiences will be required and the time allotted to field experiences across all courses in the curriculum.

c) In addition to meeting the requirements in subsections (a) and (b) of this Section,

programs providing 50 percent or more of coursework via distance learning or video-conferencing technology shall be approved only if they meet the following conditions.

1) Candidates must be observed by a full-time tenure track faculty member

who provides instruction in the principal preparation program. The observations, which must take place in person, shall be for a minimum of two full days each semester, and for a minimum of 20 days throughout the length of the program. The observations must include time spent interacting and working with the candidate in a variety of settings (i.e., observing the candidate’s teaching, attending meetings with the candidate, observing the candidate during the internship portion of the program).

2) Each candidate shall be required to spend a minimum of one day per semester, exclusive of internship periods, at the program’s Illinois facility in order to meet with the program’s full-time faculty, to present and reflect on projects and research for coursework recently completed, and to discuss the candidate’s progress in the program.

2) Each candidate shall be required to attend in person the meetings outlined

in Section 30.40(c) of this Part.

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. _______, effective______________)

Section 30.60 Staffing Requirements

a) At a minimum, each program shall allocate two faculty members on a full-time basis to the program if 100 candidates or fewer are enrolled on a part-time or a full-time basis, and one additional faculty member shall be allocated on a full-time basis for each increment of 50 or fewer candidates enrolled on a part-time or a full-time basis.


ILLINOIS REGISTER



1) For the purposes of this subsection (a), “enrolled” means enrollment in

one or more courses required for completion of the program. 2) A faculty member may include time spent teaching in other educational

leadership programs (e.g., superintendent, chief school business official) offered by the institution when determining “full-time basis”.

b) No candidate shall receive more than one-third of his or her coursework from the

same instructor. c) No more than 80 percent of the coursework in a program shall be taught by

adjunct faculty. For each adjunct faculty member employed, the program shall maintain evidence that the individual has demonstrated expertise in the area of his or her assignment.

d) A faculty supervisor shall have no more than 36 candidates assigned to him or her

during any one 12-month period of an internship. However, when a university requires faculty to supervise at least 48 candidates in order to have a full course load, these faculty shall have no more than 48 candidates assigned to them.

e) No mentor shall have more than two candidates assigned to him or her at any

period during the internship, except that the State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board (SEPLB) State Teacher Certification Board (STCB) may make an exception for a third candidate if the SEPLB STCB finds the explanation and accompanying documentation submitted by the program supports granting of the exception (i.e., there is only one qualified mentor available in sparsely populated areas of the State). Approval under this subsection (e) is granted for the duration of the mentor’s participation in the program and need not be renewed.

f) Each full-time faculty member in the program and each faculty supervisor shall

successfully complete participate in the training and pass the assessment required for evaluation of licensed certified personnel under Section 24A-3 of the School Code.

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. ______, effective______________)

Section 30.70 Candidate Selection


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Candidates admitted to a program for principal preparation shall be selected through an in-person interview process. Each candidate must meet the following minimum requirements.

a) A valid and current Illinois professional educator license endorsed for one of the teaching areas certificate (i.e., early childhood, elementary, secondary, special K-12, or special preschool-age 21 certificate).

b) Passage of the test of basic skills if the candidate had not been required to take the

test for receipt of his or her Illinois professional educator license teaching certificate (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.720(b)).

c) Submission of a portfolio that presents evidence of a candidate’s achievements

during his or her teaching experience in each of the following categories:

1) Support of all students in the classroom to achieve high standards of learning;

2) Accomplished classroom instruction, which shall include data providing

evidence of two years of student growth and learning within the last five years;

3) Significant leadership roles in the school (e.g., curriculum development,

discipline, team teaching assignment, mentoring); 4) Strong oral and written communication skills; 5) Analytic abilities needed to collect and analyze data for student

improvement; 6) Demonstrated respect for family and community; 7) Strong interpersonal skills; and 8) Knowledge of curriculum and instructional practices.

d) For purposes of subsection (c) of this Section, “evidence” includes, but is not limited to:


ILLINOIS REGISTER



1) Evaluations of the candidate’s teaching abilities from supervisors that attest to students’ academic growth;

2) Evidence of leadership roles held and descriptions of the impact the

candidate has had on the classroom, school or district, or the constituents served;

3) An analysis of classroom data (student scores) that describes how the data

were used to inform instructional planning and implementation, including an explanation of what standards were addressed, the instructional outcomes, and steps taken when expected outcomes did not occur;

4) Information on the candidate’s work with families and/or community

groups and a description of how this work affected instruction or class activities;

5) Examples of the candidate’s analytical abilities as evidenced by a

description of how he or she used the results from student assessments to improve student learning; and

6) Evidence of curriculum development, student assessments, or other

initiatives that resulted from the candidate’s involvement on school committees.

e) Each applicant shall interview with no fewer than two of the program’s full-time

faculty members and shall, at a minimum, discuss the contents of his or her portfolio and complete on site a written response to a scenario presented by the interviewers.


Section 30.80 Program Approval and Review

a) A program seeking approval shall follow the procedures set forth in 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.145 (Approval of New Programs within Recognized Institutions).

b) In addition to meeting the requirements of 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.145, the program

proposal required to be submitted as part of the request for approval shall specify


ILLINOIS REGISTER



how the program will meet the requirements set forth in this Part, as well as address each of the following:

1) The guidance to be developed to ensure that faculty supervisors effectively

assist candidates to optimize their experiences during the internship;

2) The roles and responsibilities of candidates and faculty supervisors; 3) Employment criteria used in selecting and evaluating adjunct faculty; 4) The process the institution or not-for-profit entity will use to communicate

with the faculty supervisor and candidate; 5) Any additional requirements for admission to the program that the

institution or not-for-profit entity will impose; 6) A description of the rubric the program will use to assess and evaluate the

quality of a candidate’s portfolio required under Section 30.70; 7) The competencies, to include those specified in Section 30.45(a) of this

Part, expected of candidates who complete the program and how those expectations will be communicated to the candidate upon his or her admittance to the program;

8) The activities to meet the expectations embedded in the critical success

factors specified in Section 30.45(b) of this Part that will be required of candidates for completion of the program and how these activities and expectations will be communicated to the candidate upon his or her admittance to the program;

9) A copy of the partnership agreement or agreements and a description of

the partners’ involvement in the development of the program, a description of the roles each partner will have, and information on how the partnership will continue to operate and how it will be evaluated;

10) A copy of any agreements with school districts or nonpublic schools

(other than those participating in the partnership) that will serve as sites for the internship or field experiences;


ILLINOIS REGISTER



11) A description of each course proposed and the internship, to include:

A) a course syllabus; B) how progress will be measured and successful completion will be

determined; C) a data table that demonstrates each course’s, and the internship’s,

alignment to the ISLLC 2008 standards (see Section 30.30(c) of this Part); and

D) for individual courses, a detailed description of any field

experiences required for course completion;

12) Copies of assessments and rubrics to be used in the program, including but not limited to samples of scenarios to which a candidate must provide a written response and interview questions for selection in the program and any additional assessments to be used for the internship beyond what is required under Section 30.45 of this Part;

13) A description of the coursework for candidates and training to be provided

for faculty members relative to the evaluation of licensed certified staff under Article 24A of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/Art. 24A];

14) A letter signed by the chief administrator of the institution and/or the not-

for-profit entity, stating its commitment to hiring additional full-time faculty if enrollment in the program increases; and

15) A complete description of how data on the program will be collected,

analyzed, and used for program improvement, and how these data will be shared with the educational unit or not-for-profit entity and the partnering school district or nonpublic school.

c) A request for program approval shall be submitted to the State Superintendent for

consideration (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.145(b)). The State Superintendent shall provide a complete request to the Principal Preparation Review Panel for its review and recommendation as to whether the program should be approved. The panel, to be appointed by the State Superintendent, shall consist of:


ILLINOIS REGISTER



1) two individuals holding current and valid Illinois professional educator licenses endorsed in a teaching field teaching certificates and currently employed in Illinois public schools;

2) four individuals holding current and valid principal or general

administrative endorsements on a professional educator license administrative certificates endorsed for “general administrative” pursuant to 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.335 or “principal” pursuant to 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.337, and currently employed as principals in Illinois public schools;

3) two individuals holding current and valid superintendent endorsements on

a professional educator license administrative certificates endorsed for “superintendent” pursuant to 23 Ill. Code 25.360 and currently employed as superintendents in Illinois public schools;

4) two individuals from institutions of higher education in Illinois that have a

recognized educational unit approved for the provision of educator preparation programs pursuant to 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.Subpart C, one of whom shall be from a public institution and one of whom shall be from a nonpublic institution;

5) one licensed certified staff member currently employed in a school district

in any city in Illinois having a population exceeding 500,000; and 6) one individual representing the Illinois business community. If the

individual appointed is unable to attend all meetings, he or she may request that an alternate be appointed to attend in his or her absence.

d) The Principal Preparation Review Panel shall acknowledge receipt of the request

for approval within 30 days after receipt. Based upon its review, the Panel may:

1) issue a recommendation to the State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board (SEPLB) State Teacher Certification Board (STCB) that the principal preparation program be approved; a copy of that recommendation and notification of the SEPLB’s STCB’s meeting to consider the Panel’s recommendation shall be provided to the applicant; or

2) issue a recommendation to the SEPLB STCB that the principal preparation

program be denied, including the reasons for the recommended denial; a


ILLINOIS REGISTER



copy of that recommendation and notification of the SEPLB’s STCB’s meeting to consider the Panel’s recommendation shall be provided to the applicant.

e) An institution or not-for-profit entity may withdraw its request for approval by

notifying the State Superintendent of Education of its intent to withdraw no later than 15 days after it receives notification of the Principal Preparation Review Panel’s recommendation.

f) Actions following upon the recommendation of the SEPLB STCB shall be as described in 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.160 (Notification of Recommendations; Decisions by State Board of Education).

g) An approved principal preparation program shall be subject to the review process set forth in 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.Subpart C.


Section 30.APPENDIX A Internship Assessment Rubric Assessment 1 – Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding and performance in data analysis, school improvement, and conducting the School Improvement Plan (SIP) process (to the extent possible). Focus Area: 1.1 – Explain the purpose of the SIP and its relationship to the school’s vision in a presentation to a group of stakeholders (e.g., at a faculty meeting, department meeting, parent group, community group).

Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score Content: • ISLCC Standards

1.A through 1.E, 4.A, and 5.A

• Appropriateness of the content

The candidate uses media in a compelling presentation format that focuses on the school’s vision and mission and its connection to the work of the staff and principal to attain greater student achievement. The presentation also connects the vision to the work of the

The presentation does not bring the vision and mission of the school into focus for the attainment of greater student achievement. The school improvement plan is mentioned but is not a central part of the work to accomplish greater student achievement. The

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score school’s improvement plan and is tailored to the audience.

presentation is too generic to specifically connect the audience to the material.

Process: • Follows theory to

practice • Logical and

sequential • Understandable • Achieves the

purpose

The candidate creates a document that clearly outlines the process used in preparing for the presentation, communicating with the audience, and planning the follow-up meeting. The candidate provides additional artifacts to support the presentation. There is a logical sequence to all events, all are well-planned and executed, and achieve the stated purpose.

The candidate’s outline is brief or incomplete for the presentation. Few artifacts support the presentation. It lacks organizational logic and reflects poor planning. The purpose is vague, clear communication to the audience is lacking, and the presentation does not achieve its purpose.

1 / 0

Outcomes: • Clearly stated • Clearly

demonstrated • Data support the

results

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations of the presentation. The candidate has additional data and documents to support the outcomes and expectations. The candidate provides artifacts to support the presentation.

The outcomes of the candidate’s presentation are vague and unclear (few or no artifacts support the presentation). There are few supporting documents or data to back up the presentation.

1 / 0

Products: • Align to standards • Articulate and

well organized • Demonstrates full

completion

The candidate produces the following presentation items: an outline, a multi-media presentation (Power Point or other), handouts, meeting minutes, and documentation of the input from the audience as a result of the presentation. (More artifacts are encouraged to demonstrate greater competency.)

The candidate produces few of the following suggested items and artifacts did not demonstrate competency: an outline, a multi-media presentation (Power Point or other), handouts, meeting minutes, and documentation of the input from the audience as a result of the presentation.

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score Quality: • First-year

principal or better • Complete • Accurate

Demonstrates the following quality in all materials: correct formatting in accordance with the “Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), Sixth Edition” (no later amendments to or editions of these standards are incorporated); correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness. The candidate meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness. The candidate does not meet or exceed the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1 / 0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

Focus Area: 1.2 – Analyze and review data, including but not limited to, State test results, and work with a faculty team to identify areas for improvement and interventions, with particular attention given to NCLB student subgroups identified under 23 Ill. Adm. Code 1.60 (Subgroups of Students; Inclusion of Relevant Scores) and low-performing students. As used in this Section, “NCLB” refers to Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 USC 6301 et seq.).

Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score Content: • ISLLC Standards

2.A through 2.I, 5.A, 5.C, 5.D, and 5.E


The candidate works with faculty to review and analyze national, State, district, school and classroom data to identify academic achievement interventions for each of the schools’ NCLB subgroups or low-performing students. Candidate’s work reflects new interventions that align to the School Improvement Plan and the school’s student achievement goals.

The candidate’s work with faculty to analyze and review data will not likely result in improved student learning for each of the schools’ NCLB subgroups or low-performing students. The candidate’s work with faculty is sporadic, disconnected, or does not connect the intervention to the SIP and the school’s student achievement goals.

1 / 0




purpose

The candidate produces an analysis of data (an artifact) and has other artifacts to demonstrate the process used in preparing for, working with, and following up on the work with the faculty in the identification of interventions that will improve student learning for all NCLB subgroups. There is a logical sequence to all activities. Planning and execution is of high quality and achieves the purpose.

The candidate is not able to produce a useable process for the review and analysis of data (an artifact) or other artifacts that demonstrate a reliable process for preparing, working with, and following up on the work with the faculty. The candidate identifies inadequate improvement interventions. There is an illogical sequence to all activities. Planning and execution is poor and the purpose is not achieved.

1 / 0



results

The candidate produces clearly stated outcomes and expectations, performs data analysis, reviews the process used with the faculty (artifacts to demonstrate accomplishment) and has additional data and documents to support the

The candidate produces unclear outcomes and expectations for the data analysis and review process with the faculty (and has poorly constructed artifacts). Further, additional data and documents to support the outcomes of specific new

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score outcomes of specific new improvement interventions for all NCLB subgroups.

improvement interventions for all NCLB subgroups are lacking or absent.



completion

The candidate produces the following suggested items: a document detailing the data analysis and review process and products; all materials created and used in leading the faculty through the analysis and identification of specific interventions; and the meeting minutes verifying the input of, and work done by, the faculty on the interventions (more artifacts are encouraged to demonstrate greater competency).

The candidate produces few of the suggested items. Those produced do not demonstrate competency in the documentation of the following processes: conducting a review of the analysis of data; leading the faculty through the analysis and identification of specific instructional interventions; detailing meeting minutes indicating faculty worked on the interventions discussed; or soliciting input from faculty in the school improvement process.

1 / 0

Quality: • First-year


The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness. The candidate meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.


1 / 0


Total Score

Focus Area: 1.3 – Work with faculty or faculty teams to create, implement, and formatively evaluate a school improvement action plan.

Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score Content: The candidate demonstrates The candidate’s action plan


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score • ISLLC Standards

1.B through 1.E, 2.A, 2.D, 2.E, 2.I, 4.A through 4.D, and 5.A


his or her work with the faculty to create, implement and evaluate an SIP action plan. The action plan is based on current data, reflects current research and best practices, and is connected to the work outlined in the school’s SIP.

does not clearly focus on the work of the faculty to attain greater student achievement. The plan is not based on data, does not reflect current research, and is not clearly connected to the work outlined in the school’s SIP.

1 / 0




purpose

The candidate creates a clear action plan (an artifact) in collaboration with the faculty and possesses other artifacts that demonstrate the processes used in preparing for, implementing and evaluating the SIP action plan. There is a logical sequence to all events, all are well-planned and executed, and achieve the purpose of improving student achievement.

The candidate’s action plan is not clear or is missing (an artifact), and other artifacts that demonstrate the processes used in preparing for, implementing, and evaluating the action plan are inadequate to create success. The candidate does not engage faculty in the creation of the action plan. The sequence of events is illogical, often unplanned and executed, and they do not achieve the purpose of improving student achievement.

1 / 0



results

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations of the action plan. The candidate and the faculty demonstrate a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities required for the implementation of the action plan and the continuous school improvement process.

The candidate states the outcomes and expectations of the initiatives but the focus is unclear. The candidate’s action plan is unclear or lacks faculty input. The additional data and documents to support the outcomes of the initiative are lacking or absent. The process for the formative evaluation of the action plan

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score is lacking or absent.



completion

The candidate produces the following artifacts: a copy of the action plan; data and other information used with staff who work on the creation and implementation of the action plan; documentation of meetings and processes used to monitor the progress of the implementation; and evidence of a formative evaluation process and impacts on student learning attained as a result of the initiative (more artifacts are encouraged to demonstrate greater competency).

The candidate produces a few but not all of the suggested items: a copy of the action plan; data and other information used with staff who work on the creation and implementation of the action plan; documentation of meetings and processes used to monitor the progress of the implementation; evidence of a formative evaluation process and measurement of impact on student learning attained as a result of the action plan.

1 / 0



The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness. The candidate meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.


1 / 0


Total Score

Focus Area: 1.4 – Work with faculty or faculty teams to gather and examine data to assess progress on the SIP and make recommendations for improvements or modifications to the SIP for the following year.



ILLINOIS REGISTER




1.B through 1.E, 2.A, 2.D, 2.E, 2.I, 4.A-4.D, and 5.A


The candidate presents to the school’s leadership team a comprehensive examination of the progress made by the staff and principal toward the identified goals of the SIP. The presentation clearly explains the data used to analyze the impact of various interventions toward the goals identified in the SIP. The candidate’s recommendations are based on an analysis of interventions implemented in support of the SIP, faculty input, and are aligned with the mission and vision of the school. The presentation focuses on the work of the staff and principal to attain improved and increased student achievement and demonstrates significant logical and practical improvements for future planning by the school’s leadership team.

The candidate’s presentation to the school’s leadership team is an incomplete examination of the school’s SIP; the analysis of action plans is lacking and recommendations are not logical or practical for future improvement planning. The recommendations are not based on an analysis of interventions implemented in support of the SIP or are lacking in detail. The presentation is unclear in its focus on the work of the staff and principal to increase student achievement. The recommendations are not aligned with the mission and vision of the school or are not clearly articulated as such.

1 / 0




purpose

The candidate demonstrates the analysis and presentation as an artifact and has other artifacts that demonstrate the processes used in preparing for, presenting, and following up on the meeting after the presentation. There is a logical sequence to all events, all are well-planned and executed, and they achieve

The candidate has an incomplete analysis and presentation as an artifact and does not provide other artifacts that demonstrate the processes used in preparing for, presenting, and following up on the meeting after the presentation. The sequence of events is illogical, often unplanned

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score the purpose of improving student achievement.

and executed, and the events do not achieve the purpose of improving student achievement.



results

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations of the presentation (and possesses artifacts to demonstrate accomplishment). The candidate produces additional data and documents to support the outcomes or expectations from the presentation.

The outcomes of the candidate’s presentation are vague and unclear (few or no artifacts support the presentation). There are few supporting documents or data to back up the presentation.

1 / 0



completion

The candidate produces the following presentation items: an outline, a multi-media presentation (Power Point or other), handouts, explanation of the analysis of interventions implemented in support of the SIP and how the recommendations incorporate that analysis, list of recommendations, meeting minutes, and input received as a result of the presentation. (More artifacts are most certainly welcome to demonstrate greater competency.)

The candidate produces few of the following items and those presented do not demonstrate competency: handouts, explanation of the analysis of interventions implemented in support of the SIP and how the recommendations incorporate that analysis, list of recommendations, and meeting minutes, and input received as a result of the presentation.

1 / 0



The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness. The

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness. The

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score candidate meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

candidate does not meet or exceed the standards and competencies of this assessment.


Total Score

Assessment 2 – Demonstrate comprehensive understanding and performance in conducting teacher hiring, faculty evaluation, and professional development. Focus Area: 2.1 – Participate in the hiring process including, at a minimum, creation of a job description; creation of interview questions and evaluation tools; participation in interviews for the position; recommendation of the candidate to hire with rationale and data to support the selection; and preparation of letters of rejection for candidates who were not selected.


3.A, 3.B, 4.B, 5.B, and 6.A


The candidate collaborates with staff to align the teacher job description to student learning needs. The candidate creates a job description. Alternatively, if the school district uses a standard job description, the candidate analyzes an existing job description and composes a memo to the human resources director or superintendent with recommendations for improvements to the job description. The candidate creates interview questions and a tool to evaluate the applicants’ competence. The interview questions are aligned with student learning needs. The evaluation tools are based on the job

The candidate does not collaborate with staff on the alignment of the teacher job description to student learning needs. The candidate neither creates nor analyzes the standard job description provided by the school district and does not write a critique of it or the analysis is lacking in substance. The candidate does not create interview questions, and tools to evaluate the applicants or the interview questions are not aligned with student learning needs. The candidate does not create evaluation tools, the evaluation tools are not based on the job description, or the tools do not provide clear criteria for evaluating

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score description and provides clear criteria for evaluating the applicants for the position. The interview questions are relevant to making judgments about the competency of applicants and do not request information that violates anti-discrimination laws.

applicants for the position. One or more of the interview questions are not relevant to making judgments about the competence of applicants or request information that violates anti-discrimination laws.




purpose

The candidate participates in the interviews of applicants for the position. The candidate greets applicants, states the purpose of the interview, asks relevant questions, takes accurate notes, and provides information to applicants about the school and district. The candidate completes the evaluations of the applicants. The candidate prepares rejection letters for candidates who were not selected.

The candidate does not complete one or more important aspects of the process. The candidate does not participate in the interviews of applicants for the position; does not perform one or more of the following: greets applicants, states the purpose of the interview, asks relevant questions, takes accurate notes, or provides information to applicants about the school and district; does not complete the evaluations of the applicants; or does not prepare rejection letters for candidates who were not selected.

1 / 0

Outcomes/Reflection: • Clearly stated • Clearly


results • Reflection

The candidate recommends an applicant for employment as a teacher, and the recommendation is supported with a sound rationale and data from the evaluation. (In the event an applicant was not acceptable, the candidate explained why.)

The candidate recommends an applicant for the position, but the rationale is weak or is not supported with data from the evaluation. The candidate does not reflect on the knowledge and skills required to effectively perform his or her role, or

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score The candidate reflects on the knowledge and skills required to effectively perform his or her role and explains how the outcome of the hiring process contributes to student learning.

the reflection is superficial. The candidate does not explain how the outcome of the hiring process contributes to student learning or the explanation is facile.



completion

The candidate produces (1) a description of collaboration with staff on alignment of the job description with student learning needs; (2) the job description the candidate creates or, if a standard job description is used by the district, a recommendation memo to human resources or the superintendent; (3) interview questions; (4) evaluation tools to rate the applicants; and (5) rejection letters for candidates who were not selected.

The candidate is missing one or more of the following: (1) description of collaboration with staff on alignment of the job description with student learning needs; (2) job description the candidate creates or, if a standard job description is used by the district, a critique of the job description; (3) interview questions; (4) evaluation tools to rate the applicants; and (5) rejection letters for candidates who were not selected.

1 / 0



The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; did not meet the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1 / 0


Total Score

Focus Area: 2.2 – Conduct a full cycle of clinical supervision, including a pre-observation conference, a classroom observation, and a post-observation conference. Write a summary that provides evidence using actual notes, observations, discussion, forms, and student achievement


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS data providing feedback to the teacher. Provide examples of interventions and supports needed for the non-tenured or struggling teacher.


1.B through 1.E, 2.A, 2.D, 2.F, 2.G, 2.H, 2.I, 3.C, 3.D, 3.E, 5.B, 5.C, and 5.E


The candidate clearly demonstrates knowledge and skills of clinical supervision and formative and summative evaluation (through a summary based upon notes, observations, meeting with a teacher, forms and student achievement data). The candidate demonstrates knowledge of methods that school leaders employ to strengthen the vision and mission of the school through alignment of clinical supervision with the school improvement process. The candidate demonstrates the communication, interpersonal, and ethical skills and understandings necessary for effective school leadership through clinical supervision.

The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge and skills of clinical supervision and formative and summative evaluation (through a summary based upon notes, observations, meeting with a teacher, forms and student achievement data). The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge of methods that school leaders employ to strengthen the vision and mission of the school through alignment of clinical supervision with the school improvement process. The candidate does not demonstrate the communication, interpersonal, and ethical skills and understandings necessary for effective school leadership through clinical supervision.

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score Process: • Follows theory to



purpose

Based upon best practices in clinical supervision, the candidate clearly connects the three stages of clinical supervision: the pre-observation conference, classroom observation, and post-observation conference. The candidate’s process is coherent and purpose-driven. The pre-observation conference establishes the purpose of the observation and the tools used to gather data on the classroom instructional process. The observation is focused and aligned to its purpose. During the post-observation conference, results are shared, recommendations for improvement provided, and professional development activities identified.

The candidate does not follow the three-step clinical supervision process. The candidate’s process is disjointed, not purpose-driven, and unfocused. The process does not result in useful and data-based recommendations for improvement that could guide ongoing professional development.

1 / 0

Outcomes/Reflection: • Clearly stated • Clearly


results • Reflection

The candidate clearly states the outcomes of the clinical supervision process and formative and summative evaluation. The candidate demonstrates accomplishment of the purpose of the process using appropriate data and other information to assess teacher performance from the observation. The candidate provides examples of professional development connected to the school’s

The outcomes for the clinical supervision and formative and summative evaluation process are not clearly identified during the pre-observation conference. As a result, data and information collected during the observation are disjointed and unfocused. The lack of identification of outcomes negatively impacts the post-conference. The candidate’s personal reflection lacks

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score improvement process for the majority of teachers or necessary interventions and support for non-tenured or struggling teachers. The candidate reflects individually and seeks feedback on performance as an evaluator from the evaluated teacher or principal mentor to assess personal effectiveness.

depth or does not address the individual teacher who was observed. The candidate does not solicit feedback on his or her performance as an evaluator from the teacher being evaluated or the internship principal.



completion

The candidate produces an articulate and well-organized summary of the formative clinical supervision process that includes documentation from the formative pre-observation conference, classroom observation, the post-observation conference and the summative evaluation of the teacher’s performance. In a reflection, the candidate articulates the effects of supervision on student learning and the school improvement process. Artifacts include notes and forms used in the pre-observation conference, classroom observation, post-observation conference, post-observation conference write-up or formative evaluation form; summative evaluation; professional development recommendations.

The candidate is missing one or more of the artifacts that summarizes the candidate’s work in the clinical supervision process, including documentation from the formative pre-observation conference, classroom observation, the post-observation conference or the summative evaluation of the teacher’s performance. Artifacts missing include notes and forms used in the pre-observation conference, classroom observation, post-observation conference; post-observation conference write-up or formative evaluation form; summative evaluation; or professional development recommendations.

1 / 0

Quality: The following quality is The following quality is


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score • First-year


demonstrated in all materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

lacking in materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; did not meet the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1 / 0


Total Score

Focus Area: 2.3 – In conjunction with stakeholders, lead in the development of a professional development plan for a school building that includes (1) data analysis (reviewed in Focus Area 1.2); (2) multiple options for teacher development; and (3) a method for evaluating the professional development plan and the extent to which it will lead to school improvement.


1.B through 1.E, 2.A, 2.D, 2.F, 2.G, 3.D, 4.A through 4.D, and 5.A


The candidate clearly demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the 12 components of the National Staff Development Council’s Standards for Staff Development (2001).

The candidate does not or inadequately demonstrates knowledge of the National Staff Development Council’s Standards for Staff Development (2001).

1 / 0




purpose

The candidate clearly demonstrates application of the staff development standards to his or her school’s professional development needs by analyzing data, creating options, and creating an evaluation plan in collaboration with stakeholders.

The candidate does not or inadequately demonstrates application of the staff development standards to his or her school’s professional development needs by analyzing data, creating options, and creating an evaluation plan in collaboration with stakeholders.

1 / 0

Outcomes: The candidate clearly states The candidate does not or


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score • Clearly stated • Clearly


results

the outcomes of the school’s professional development plan in relationship to school improvement.

inadequately states the outcomes of the school’s professional development plan in relationship to school improvement.

1 / 0



completion

The candidate’s internship time-log and reflections clearly indicate knowledge of the staff development standards, application of the standards to the professional development plan embedded in the school’s SIP, and a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of the plan to improve student learning.

The candidate’s internship time-log and reflections do not indicate or inadequately indicate knowledge of staff development standards, application of the standards to the professional development plan embedded in the school’s SIP, and a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of the plan to improve student learning.

1 / 0





1 / 0


Total Score

Assessment 3 – Demonstrate comprehensive understanding and performance in conducting schoolwide management of personnel, resources, and systems for adequacy and equity. Focus Area: 3.1 – Investigate, define, and delineate the systems and factors within the internship school for advocating, nurturing and sustaining a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students.



ILLINOIS REGISTER




1.D, 2.A through 2.I, 4.A through 4.D, 5.B, 5.C, 5.E, and 6.A through 6.C


The candidate demonstrates knowledge and skills in an understanding of systems and factors within the internship school that advocate, nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students. Content knowledge is demonstrated in the following areas: professional learning community, school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership, building leadership teams, cultural proficiency and guaranteed and viable curriculum and climate.

The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge and skills in an understanding of systems and factors within the internship school that advocate, nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students. Content knowledge is not demonstrated in the following areas: professional learning community, school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership, building leadership teams, cultural proficiency and guaranteed and viable curriculum and climate.

1 / 0




purpose

The candidate clearly demonstrates an understanding of the systems and factors within the internship school that advocate, nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students through the graphic mapping of the system and recommendations for improvement. Recommendations are

The candidate does not demonstrate an understanding of the systems and factors within the internship school that advocate, nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students through the graphic mapping of the system and recommendations for improvement. Recommendations are

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score accurate, complete, logical, and able to be implemented in a school setting.

inaccurate, incomplete, illogical, and not able to be implemented in a school setting.

Outcomes/Reflection: • Clearly stated and


results • Candidate reflects

on his or her role in the process

• Reflection

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations for improving student learning through the analysis of two areas of the school’s learning environment as evidenced by conducting a review of data, identifying supporting factors and impeding factors, creating a graphic map of the system, evaluating effectiveness and making recommendations for improvement. The candidate reflects on his or her involvement and the potential impact these systems may have on school personnel and student achievement and learning.

The candidate does not clearly state the outcomes and expectations for improving student learning through the analysis of two areas of the school’s learning environment as evidenced by a poor review of data, lack of identification of supporting factors and impeding factors, poorly graphed map of the system, incomplete evaluation of effectiveness

1 / 0

and poor recommendations for improvement. The candidate is not able to adequately reflect on his or her involvement and the potential impact the work may have on school personnel and student achievement and learning.



completion

The candidate produces the following: a review and map of the learning environment, an analysis of supporting and impeding factors, and an evaluation of the systems’ effectiveness and recommendations for improvement. Potential learning environment system areas include professional learning communities, the

The candidate does not or poorly produces the following items: a review and map of the learning environment, an analysis of supporting and impeding factors, and an evaluation of the systems’ effectiveness and recommendations for improvement. Potential learning environment system areas include professional

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership, school leadership teams, cultural proficiency and guaranteed and viable curriculum and climate.

learning communities, the school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership and building leadership teams, and these are minimally or not included.





1 / 0


Total Score

Focus Area: 3.2 – Review the school’s budget and other resources with the mentor. Detail how the resources are typically used, evaluated for adequacy and assessed for effectiveness and efficiency. Provide recommendations for improvement. Address the impact of the budget on the following NCLB student subgroups: limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged. Present recommendations for improvement to a faculty group and solicit input in the budget development process.


1.D, 2.E, 3.A through 3.E, 4.A, and 5.A through 5.E


The candidate’s presentation and artifacts support a clear understanding of the school’s budget and delineate the use of available resources, evaluate adequacy and assess for effectiveness and efficiency. The candidate’s presentation provides recommendations for improvement to a specific

The candidate does not present or poorly presents his or her understanding of the school budget, available resources and specific impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged. The candidate’s final budget

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score audience and solicits input. The candidate’s presentation and final report addresses the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged.

report does not provide or minimally provides appropriate recommendations for improvement.




purpose

The candidate documents a meeting with the mentor to review the school’s budget (an artifact). The candidate demonstrates an understanding of the school budget and resources available, providing details of how the resources are used, and an assessment of adequacy, effectiveness, and efficiency as delineated in a report prepared and shared with the mentor. The candidate documents the presentation of recommendations for budget improvement to the faculty and receives input. The candidate and mentor meet to discuss the candidate’s recommendations and reflections on the school budget, resources, impact on student subgroups and recommendations.

The candidate fails to demonstrate an understanding of the school budget and resources. The candidate’s report does not show an understanding of how resources are used or provide an assessment of adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency. The candidate does not present the budget to a faculty group for input. No meeting or a limited meeting is held between the candidate and mentor to discuss the school budget, resources, impact on student subgroups, the candidate’s recommendations or the candidate’s reflections on the school budget and other resources.

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score Outcomes/Reflection: • Clearly stated and




• Reflection

The candidate clearly understands the school budget and resources as evidenced by a formal report detailing how the resources are used, including an assessment of adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency. Appropriate recommendations are made for improvement. The report specifically addresses the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged. The report findings are presented to the principal. The candidate is able to reflect on his or her involvement in the budget review process, resources available and the impact the recommendations will have on the school.

The candidate reviews the budget. Knowledge of other resources is minimal. The details on how the resources are used, including an assessment of adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency, are incomplete. School budget recommendations are poor or inappropriate. Little or no specificity is given to the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged. The candidate is unable to accurately reflect on his or her involvement in reviewing the school budget, resources and impact on subgroups.

1 / 0



completion

The candidate produces the following: a copy of the school budget he or she has reviewed, initialed by the mentor; a report containing the details of how the budget resources are used, and how the resources are evaluated for adequacy and assessed for effectiveness and efficiency; and recommendations for improvement. The final report addresses the impact of the

The candidate does not produce a copy of the school budget he or she has reviewed, initialed by the mentor. The report does not contain the details of how resources are used, or how the resources are evaluated for adequacy or assessed for effectiveness and efficiency. The candidate makes inadequate or inappropriate recommendations for budget

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged.

improvements or the final report does not specifically address the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged.





1 / 0


Total Score

Focus Area: 3.3 – State the mission of the school. Determine and analyze the different systems that exist within the school to fulfill the school’s mission (i.e., instructional (curriculum, assessment, technology, class structure), and management (discipline plan, attendance, maintenance, transportation)). Choose one instructional and one management system and create an assessment tool that will be used to rate the two systems. Finally, develop recommendations for improvement of aspects of the two systems that need improvement and report the findings to the mentor.


1.A, 1.B, 1.D, 2.E, 2.G, 2.H, 3.A, 3.B, 4.A, and 5.A


The candidate clearly incorporates the mission of the school in determining and analyzing the two different systems (one instructional and one management). The candidate creates an assessment tool for analysis to use in developing

The candidate does not clearly incorporate the mission of the school in determining and analyzing the two different systems (one instructional and one management). The candidate’s assessment tool for analysis lacks

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score recommendations for improvement in the final report.

development for accurate and worthwhile recommendations for improvement in the final report.




purpose

The candidate demonstrates an understanding of two school systems (instructional and management) through the use of an accurately created assessment to analyze the two systems. Results of the analysis are connected to practical recommendations for improvement.

The candidate is unable to demonstrate an understanding of two school systems (instructional and management). The assessment is not accurate for use in analysis of the two systems. The analysis is unconnected to practical recommendations for improvement.

1 / 0

Outcomes/Reflection: • Clearly stated and




• Reflection

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations of analyzing two systems (one instructional and one management) through reviewing data and systems, creating an assessment tool, evaluating effectiveness, making recommendations and reporting findings to the principal. The candidate is able to reflect on his or her involvement in the project and the impact the recommendations will have on the school.

The candidate does not clearly state the outcomes and expectations of analyzing two systems (one instructional and one management). The reviewed data are lacking, the assessment is ineffective and lacks connection to the recommendations, and the reported findings are not appropriate. The candidate is lacking in the reflection on his or her involvement in the project and the impact the recommendations will have on the school.

1 / 0


well organized

The candidate produces a report that contains the following: a clear connection of recommended changes to

The candidate is unable to produce a report that contains clear connections of recommended changes to the

1 / 0


ILLINOIS REGISTER



Meets the Standard Does Not Meet the Standard Score • Demonstrates full

completion

the mission of the school; a mapping of two systems (one instructional and one management); an assessment tool used for the systems’ evaluation; an analysis of the data; and recommendations for improvement.

mission of the school; an analysis of two systems in the school (one instructional and one management); an assessment tool used for analysis; and recommendations for improvement.





1 / 0


Total Score



TO: State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Linda Tomlinson, Assistant Superintendent Nicki Bazer, General Counsel Agenda Topic: Action Item: Amendments for Adoption – Part 25 (Certification) Materials: Recommended Rules Staff Contacts: Kellee Sullivan, Division Administrator Purpose of Agenda Item The purpose of this agenda item is to present the proposed amendments for adoption. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan This proposal relates to Goal 2 (highly prepared and effective teachers and school leaders), as it addresses options a candidate for educator preparation programs or applicants for educator licenses may consider when providing evidence of possessing basic academic skills. Expected Outcome of Agenda Item The Board will be asked to adopt amendments to Part 25. Background On June 21, 2012, the Illinois State Board of Education adopted a policy to allow candidates for entry into educator preparation programs and applicants for Illinois educator licenses to use a minimum composite score received on the ACT® in lieu of passing the Illinois test of basic skills (i.e., Test of Academic Proficiency or TAP). Additionally, staff was asked to also include consideration of results from the SAT®, another college entrance exam, in addition to the ACT®. In order to allow candidates and applicants currently applying for programs and licenses to choose this alternative method, these options must be placed into administrative rules. The proposed amendments were published August 30, 2012, in the Illinois Register to elicit public comment; 76 comments were received. A summary and analysis of the comment received, along with any recommendations for changes as a result, is attached. Once the rulemaking is final it will replace emergency rules containing similar content that took effect July 24, 2012, for 150 days. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: Section 21B-30 of the School Code requires that each candidate for entry into an educator preparation program or applicant for an educator license provide evidence of passing a test of basic skills. The Illinois State Board of Education identifies the test to be used to assess basic skills, as well as establishes the minimum scores a candidate or applicant must achieve in order to pass the test. In April, following a standard score-setting process, an outside panel recommended the cut scores to be used for the TAP, and presented those scores to the


State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board and the State Board of Education for their adoption. This rulemaking responds to concerns expressed by representatives of institutions of higher education that a portion of candidates for educator preparation programs are unable to garner a passing score on all components (i.e., reading, language arts, mathematics and writing) of Illinois’ test of basic skills, based on the new cut scores adopted by the State Board of Education. As a result, the Board supported an alternative method of showing competency in basic skills by accepting a score either on the ACT® or SAT® that is considered to be “college ready”. The candidate or applicant may use only a composite score from an ACT® or SAT® test that includes a writing component. In response to public comment, staff is proposing that no score on the ACT® or SAT® or basic skills test may be more than 10 years old at the time it is used for program admission or when applying for an educator license. The minimum score for either the ACT® or SAT® that will be accepted as “college ready” has been posted on the State Board’s website, and any modifications to those scores will be posted no later than January 1 of the year in which the minimum composite score take effect. Providing a second option for admission into educator preparation programs has the potential to benefit a large number of candidates, especially those who have been unable to pass a particular component, or subtest (i.e., reading, language arts, mathematics and writing), of Illinois’ test of basic skills. Additionally, high school students entering postsecondary programs could use their ACT® score, if it is at or above the minimum and included the writing component, for admission to an educator preparation program rather than having to take the basic skills test at a cost of $125. Students from Illinois public high schools have taken the ACT® test as part of the State assessment, so it is likely that no further testing would be needed for these students whose State assessment includes the ACT® writing component. Finally, the proposed amendments allow an institution to provisionally admit a candidate who has taken the basic skills test but has not passed all four subtests, when the institution provides the candidate with the supports and remediation needed to pass the subtest and the candidate is fully admitted at least one full semester before he or she begins student teaching. Budget Implications: None. Legislative Action: None needed. Communication: Please see “Next Steps” below. Pros and Cons of Various Actions The goal of the basic skills test is to assure educator preparation programs that their candidates have the knowledge and skills in English language arts and mathematics that a candidate in an educator preparation program must possess. Therefore, it is reasonable to use other measures, such as results of college entrance exams, as evidence of possessing those basic skills. On the other hand, a minimum composite score on the ACT® or SAT® does not guarantee that the student has achieved a basic level in each of the subareas of reading comprehension, language arts, mathematics and writing. A candidate unable to pass a certain subtest, such as mathematics, could be admitted to an educator preparation program based on his or her composite ACT® or SAT® score even if he or she has a low score in mathematics. Allowing other options also may encourage candidates to forgo the test of basic skills altogether and rely only on their college entrance exam score.


Superintendent’s Recommendation The State Superintendent recommends that the State Board of Education adopt the following motion:

The State Board of Education hereby adopts the proposed rulemaking for:

Certification (23 Illinois Administrative Code 25),

Further, the Board authorizes the State Superintendent of Education to make such technical and nonsubstantive changes as the State Superintendent may deem necessary in response to suggestions or objections of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.

Next Steps Notice of the adopted rules will be submitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules to initiate JCAR’s review. When that process is complete, the rules will be filed with the Secretary of State and disseminated as appropriate.


Summary and Analysis of Public Comment 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25 (Certification)

Comment The majority of the commenters noted that while the proposed rule allowing for the use of a minimum score on either the ACT® or SAT® was appreciated, the companion restriction that no score may be more than five years old disadvantages certain school support personnel candidates who enter their educator preparation programs after receiving their bachelor’s degrees. They pointed out that scores from these tests for most candidates seeking a school support personnel certificate endorsed in speech-language pathology or school psychology would be more than five years old when the individuals apply to their respective graduate program. As a remedy, the commenters suggested that either the State Board allow the use of the GRE® General Test for purposes of providing evidence of having achieved a certain level of basic skills or extend the limit on the validity period for scores to seven or 10 years rather than five. Many of the commenters believed that either solution would treat candidates in graduate-level preparation programs more equitably, save them time and reduce their costs associated with schooling. A single commenter further suggested that other graduate admission tests (Miller Analogies Test (MAT), GMAT®) be acceptable options, as well. Another commenter argued that since the ACT® and SAT® are “well-established tests measuring one’s college readiness”, a candidate should be allowed to use that score, regardless of when he or she took the respective test. Finally, one individual noted what she believed was the inconsistency between the validity period for ACT® and SAT® (within five years of admission) and the test of basic skills (within five years of certification), while another pointed out that Section 25.720(f) does not clearly express the requirements pertaining to the validity period for the Illinois test of basic skills. Analysis The Educational Testing Services’ (ETS) GRE® General Test is required for admission into myriad graduate-level programs and includes three components that are similar to the areas tested by Illinois’ test of basic skills. ETS describes these areas as: • verbal reasoning, which measures the test-taker’s ability to analyze and evaluate written

material and synthesize information obtained from it, analyze relationships among component parts of sentences and recognize relationships among words and concepts;

• quantitative reasoning, which measures problem-solving ability, focusing on basic concepts of arithmetic, algebra, geometry and data analysis; and

• analytical writing, which measures critical thinking and analytical writing skills, specifically the test-taker’s ability to articulate and support complex ideas clearly and effectively.

Since the GRE® General Test measures the levels of one’s abilities expected after his or her completion of an undergraduate degree, the commenters present a reasonable argument that the GRE® might be an acceptable way in which to ascertain one’s basic skills. There are several reasons, however, why the GRE® may not be an appropriate tool to use.


1. The test is not comparable either to the test of basic skills or to the ACT® or SAT®, which tests college readiness. For that reason, it would be difficult to determine a minimum score upon which staff could rely for comparability to a passing score on the test of basic skills or the college-readiness score on the ACT® (and comparable score on the SAT®).

2. It may not be possible to use GRE® scores for the purpose proposed. ETS’ “GRE® Guide to the Use of Scores” indicates entities may not use scores “without the express, prior, written consent of ETS”. The guidance further provides that the “GRE® General Test and Subject Tests are designed to assess academic knowledge and skills relevant to graduate study”. (Emphasis added.) While the guidance indicates that the GRE® score may be appropriate for other uses, entities should not do so unless they “validate their use for those purposes”. The State Board of Education does not have the capacity to conduct this type of validation.

3. ETS acknowledges that an acceptable score achieved on each component of the GRE® will vary by “field and department”, and it states that it is inappropriate to use “a minimum score on the (GRE®) General Test for (…) advancement to candidacy”. Additionally, ETS provides that the scores from the three portions of the test “should not be combined into a single score”. For these reasons, it would not be advisable for agency staff to set a single minimum score on the GRE® as a way in which to assess a candidate’s basic skills prior to admission into an educator preparation program.

As for the time limit in which a score is valid, Section 21B-30 of the School Code provides that scores for licensure purposes may not be more than five years old at the time of application. An exception is provided in the law for the basic skills test (since it is required for admission to an educator preparation program). The ACT® and SAT® are not basic skills tests, so this exception would not apply to scores achieved on those tests; however, extending the time period in which the scores are valid is a reasonable accommodation, particularly for candidates in graduate-level educator preparation programs. Since the law is silent regarding Illinois’ test of basic skills, the Test of Academic Proficiency (TAP), staff also believe that the validity period for TAP scores used for both program admission and licensure should be 10 years. The rules should reiterate the statute’s exception to this validity period for individuals who took the TAP for program admission or for receipt of a previously issued certificate by shifting that exception from subsection (f), where it is now placed through cross-references, to subsection (b), which addresses the test of basic skills. Correcting subsection (f) in this manner will result in a rule that is not misleading. Finally, when considering the other alternative tests proposed, it is important to note that the intent of the rulemaking is not to provide a mechanism whereby all candidates are exempt from taking the TAP. For instance, GMAT® is a test generally used for admission to graduate programs in business. It is unlikely that a candidate for an educator preparation program would have taken the GMAT® as part of that application process. According to its website, MAT, on the other hand, is a “high-level mental ability test requiring the solution of problems stated as analogies”, measuring one’s ability to think analytically rather than one’s acquisition of the minimum basic skills in English language arts, reading, writing and mathematics. Recommendation It is recommended that Sections 25.720(b) and (f) be modified as follows. Section 25.720(b)


D) ACT® or SAT® are subject to the requirements of subsection (f) of this Section. D)E) ACT® or SAT® results are subject to the requirements of subsection (i) of this

Section only to the extent that an individual who has failed the Illinois test of basic skills five times shall not rely upon achievement of the minimum composite score on the ACT® or SAT® to be admitted to the educator preparation program or to receive an educator license.

Section 25.720(b)(7)

7) Except as provided in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section, no score on

the Illinois test of basic skills, including any scores from the ACT® or SAT® permitted to be used under subsection (b)(5) of this Section, shall be more than 10 years old at the time a candidate makes application for full admission into an educator preparation program or applies for any license issued, as may be required under Section 21B-20 of the School Code.

Section 25.720(f)

f) Except as provided in subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(2), and (d)(1) of this Section,

for each person seeking an Illinois license, no passing score on a content area test or the APT may be more than five years old at the time application is made. (See Section 21B-30 of the School Code.) The five-year period shall be calculated from the date the test was taken to the date of receipt of the application by the State Board of Education. Scores more than five years old will not be accepted as part of an application.

Comment A commenter asked that the validity period for a score on a licensure test be the one in place at the time the candidate enters an educator preparation program rather than the validity period in place when he or she finishes the program. She said the change to five years creates a hardship for candidates who entered programs when the validity period was 10 years. Another person said he believed the change in the validity period “after the test is taken raises questions of fairness, and ethics”. Analysis The change in the validity period of test scores for licensure purposes from 10 years to five years is the result of P.A. 97-607. The law did not include a grandfathering provision for individuals who took tests before August 26, 2011, the date upon which the law took effect, and whose results may be more than five years old. For this reason, the exception the commenters are requesting cannot be accomplished via rulemaking. Recommendation No change is recommended in response to this comment. Comment


Several individuals expressed their belief that a score of 22 on the ACT® is not sufficiently rigorous for “state licensure requirements”. They indicated that Illinois’ test of basic skills is more suited for assessing “candidates’ strengths and weaknesses” and “flagging students who have questionable basic skills”. One said she believed use of the ACT® or SAT® “has set the bar so low that all applicants to our program fulfill this measure”, asking that the agency return to only accepting passage of TAP as evidence of having achieved the required basic skills. Analysis State Board staff relied on the work of ACT to inform their decisions regarding the recommended composite score to be used in lieu of passing the TAP. The composite score of 22 is derived from the college-ready benchmarks in each subject tested by the ACT®. According to ACT’s website, the college-ready benchmarks “represent the level of achievement required for students to have a 50% chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a 75% chance of obtaining a C or higher in corresponding credit-bearing first-year college courses”. Therefore, it is assumed that students achieving a 22 or above have a better chance of being successful in – and having attained the basic skills necessary for – educator preparation programs. As reported to the Board at its June meeting, a review of data from candidates who have taken the basic skills test indicates that, of those scoring 22 on the ACT®, 53 percent passed the basic skills test either on the first attempt or after multiple attempts. Going forward, State Board staff will monitor the use of the ACT® and SAT® to ensure that candidates using the minimum scores have the basic skills necessary to become effective educators. The State Board considered an alternative to requiring passage of its TAP for program admission or licensure at the urging of institutions of higher education and some legislators. In choosing the ACT® and SAT®, staff recognize that these tests were not designed for the purpose of determining candidates’ attainment of basic skills in language arts, reading, math and writing; however, they are a supportable method of showing a student’s potential to be successful. Additionally, passage of the TAP is not the sole criterion for admission into an educator preparation program. Each institution also sets its own criteria, which may include cumulative grade point average (GPA), GPA in the student’s major area of study, or successful completion of certain coursework. Institutions also vary as to the year in which they require students to take the TAP, with some requiring that educator preparation candidates complete the test during their freshmen year and others anytime before full admission to an educator preparation program in their junior year. Recommendation No changes are recommended in response to these comments. Comment Two commenters asked that the agency not require a candidate or applicant to use a score from the ACT® Plus Writing. She noted that the State no longer funds the writing component as part of the State assessment at the high school level, and scores that candidates or applicants receive on the writing component are not factored into the subject area or composite score. Further, she said the State Board does not consider the writing score separately or as part of the minimum college-ready score it established.


Another individual asked that the agency establish a minimum score on the writing portion of the ACT® that will be accepted as evidence of having basic skills in that area. Additional commenters suggested that students who score a 22 or higher on the ACT® be allowed to take the writing portion of TAP. As one person indicated, the memo, brought to the State Board when it considered the use of the ACT® in June 2012, mentioned that the TAP writing score would continue to be used. Analysis Section 21B-30 of the School Code requires that the basic skills test include reading, language arts and mathematics, while Section 25.720 of the agency’s rules further provides that the basic skills test include subtests in each of these areas plus writing. For this reason, staff considered college-readiness examinations that included a writing component. It is true that the writing subscore is reported separately from an individual’s composite ACT® or SAT® score. The Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE), the State assessment administered to students in grade 11, includes the ACT®, in addition to State-developed questions. From spring 2007 to spring 2011, the PSAE included the ACT® Plus Writing. The writing assessment was eliminated from the PSAE due to a reduction in the State appropriation for testing, but it remains an important component of what students know and are able to do as a result of their schooling and the skills that every educator must possess. Candidates who have taken the ACT® as part of the PSAE from spring 2012 forward will not be able to use scores from that test administration. Since students often take the ACT® multiple times, those who are considering becoming educators should ensure one ACT® administration includes the writing component if they want to opt out of Illinois’ test of basic skills. It would not be appropriate to allow candidates for admission to educator preparation programs to pick and choose from among the results on separate components of several tests to piece together an acceptable composite score. Additionally, the State Board’s systems are not designed to track partial results from multiple tests. Finally, the action taken by the State Board regarding the ACT® did not authorize the use of the TAP writing subtest for individuals who wish to use their ACT® scores but do not have results from the ACT® Plus Writing. Recommendation No change is recommended in response to this comment. Comment One commenter asked why the State Board would not accept a composite score on the TAP if it is accepting a composite score on the ACT®. Analysis The agency began recording scores on each of the subtests of the test of basic skills due to requests it received from the field. Currently, candidates and applicants for licensure are allowed to retake only the subtest in which they failed to get a passing score rather than the entire test of basic skills, which was not the case when only a composite score was considered. The ACT is a comprehensive test and individuals who take the test are not able to improve their score in one area by taking only that portion of the test. For this reason, it was determined that


the composite score would provide a better overall picture of a candidate’s proficiency in basic skills areas. Recommendation No change is recommended in response to this comment. Comment A commenter asked that the rule be amended to require the State Superintendent to inform licensure officers of any change in the minimum score for the ACT® or SAT® that may be used in lieu of a passing score on the TAP. Currently, the proposed amendment indicates the information is to be sent to “educator preparation programs”. Analysis As the individual noted in her comment, Section 21B-100 requires the State Superintendent to “communicate any policy changes to licensure officers when such changes occur”. Changing the proposed amendment to require that agency staff send information to the licensure officers better aligns with statute and makes the officers aware of their responsibility to inform candidates of the requirements that apply. Recommendation It is recommended that Section 25.720(b)(5)(A) be modified as follows.

A) The State Superintendent shall announce and post on the State Board’s website no later than August 1, 2012 the minimum composite score on each test that will be accepted under this subsection (b)(5). Should either of the minimum scores be modified, the State Superintendent shall inform licensure officers educator preparation programs no later than January 1 of the score to be used and shall modify the State Board’s website accordingly.

Comment One commenter noted that the use of the term “application” in Section 25.720(f), regarding the age of the scores that can be used, is confusing to her. She shared that many educator preparation programs no longer use a “formal admission process” when considering candidates for their programs, so she asked if the application’s date is the date of the student’s application to the postsecondary institution or the date one requests admission to the educator preparation program. Analysis The term “application” in existing Section 25.720(f) refers to the point in time in which a candidate or a certificate-holder applies for a certificate or license or additional endorsements. Since new Section 25.720(b)(7) also is applicable to a candidate’s admission into a preparation program, the rule could be strengthened to make that use explicit there. It is incumbent upon licensure officers, however, to communicate the process by which an educator preparation program determines a student officially enters the program, if a “formal admission process” is


not required, rather than simply accepting the date of a student’s admission to the institution as the date of entrance into a program. Recommendation It is recommended that Section 25.720(b)(7) be modified as follows.

7) Except as provided in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section, no score on the Illinois test of basic skills, including any scores from the ACT® or SAT® permitted to be used under subsection (b)(5) of this Section, shall be more than 10 years old at the time a candidate makes application for full admission into an educator preparation program or applies for any license issued, as may be required under Section 21B-20 of the School Code. For purposes of this subsection (b)(7), “application” shall mean the point in time when the candidate has completed any initial coursework and, as applicable, the institution’s process that is required for full admission into the educator preparation program.

Comment A commenter noted that the introduction of Section 25.720(b) erroneously provides that the test of basic skills must be taken before a student enrolls in an educator preparation program rather than before he or she is fully admitted. He also asked that “Test of Academic Proficiency” be retained in the title of the Section. Analysis The commenter is correct about the use of the terms “enrollment” and “admission” and the rule should be changed to use the terminology found in Section 21B-30 of the School Code. Staff recommended the removal of the name of the specific test that is used for assessing basic skills since the name may change from time to time. Instead, the proposed amendments reiterate that the test is Illinois’ test of basic skills, regardless of the name in which it is given. Reference to “Test of Academic Proficiency” is provided in Section 25.710 of the rules, which lists all of the State Board’s licensure tests and is not part of the current rulemaking. Recommendation It is recommended that Section 25.720 be modified as follows.

b) Basic Skills Test

Except as provided in subsections (b)(1) and (2) of this Section, each candidate seeking an Illinois license (professional educator license or educator license with stipulations), whether it is his or her first license or a subsequent license, shall be required to pass a test of basic skills authorized under Section 21B-30 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/21B-30]. Further, Section 21B-30(c) of the School Code requires passage of this test as a prerequisite to a candidate’s being fully admitted into an enrollment in an Illinois educator preparation program educator preparation program.

Comment


A commenter discussed the verification form for admission to an educator preparation program that is required to be submitted by any candidate who wishes to transmit his or her ACT® or SAT® results to the State Board for use in lieu of a passing TAP score. The form requires that the candidate contact the respective testing company to have the certified score directly sent to the agency and have the licensure officer confirm, by signature, the date that the candidate applies to the institution’s educator preparation program. The commenter noted problems she has had with the form. First, she asked that the form be submitted by the institution rather than the student and that the institution attach the certified score report. In this way, the institution can ensure “authenticity” of the information on the form, such as social security numbers, before it is sent to the State Board. Second, she disagreed with the restriction (as stated on the form) that scores “remain in good standing” only for the period of time in which the candidate is enrolled in the program of the institution named on the form. She and others suggested that once the State Board accepts the score for admission purposes, that the score should be acceptable at any institution statewide. Another commenter, on the other hand, thought that the requirement for the licensure officer to sign the verification form should be eliminated. Other general comments pointed out that the procedures for “processing” ACT® and SAT® scores is cumbersome and asked that it be streamlined. One commenter suggested allowing institutions to submit verification forms to the State Board “in bulk prior to entitlement”. Another individual asked that agency staff modify the electronic educator licensure system so that ACT® and SAT® scores are entered into the system in the same way as are results from other required tests. Analysis A candidate’s results from Illinois’ test of basic skills or either from the ACT® or SAT® will be recorded in the State Board’s electronic educator licensure system when the candidate is seeking admission to an educator preparation program. Provided that the age of the score does not exceed the validity period when a candidate transfers to a new educator preparation program, the candidate would be able to rely on that score for admission into the new program. An institution is free to send verification forms to the State Board at one time; however, that practice may cause a delay in processing for those who have not taken the test of basic skills and are seeking a license or additional endorsements. Candidates for admission to educator preparation programs (rather than applicants for licensure) will be submitting the majority of the verification forms requesting use of ACT® or SAT® scores. Since the 2002-03 school year, passage of the test of basic skills has been required for admission into educator preparation programs, so any applicant for a license or additional endorsement who entered a program before that time would be unable to submit ACT® or SAT® due to the validity period of the test. State Board staff are working with the field to help them understand the process used to submit ACT® and SAT® scores. The goal is to make the process easy to use while at the same time ensuring the integrity of the scores received. Suggestions for streamlining the process will be considered, as staff continue to monitor and improve the system. Recommendation No changes are recommended in response to these comments.


Comment A commenter asked that the State Board become an authorized agency to which ACT® or SAT® results may be sent directly. Analysis State Board staff worked with ACT to acquire a special “unpublished” code for candidates and applicants to use so that the test results are sent directly to the State Board. The College Board, publisher of the SAT®, does not have a similar code available to the agency, so individuals submitting SAT® results must send the official score report – which must be sealed in original packaging – to the State Board. Recommendation No changes are recommended in response to these comments. Comment A commenter asked if individuals would need to take the TAP at the time they seek additional endorsements on the professional educator license, in situations when they choose to use a score from the ACT® or SAT® for program admission in lieu of taking the TAP. Analysis Section 25.720(b)(1) provides that a person who has taken the test of basic skills for admission to an educator preparation program would not need to retake the test at the time of certification or licensure or when seeking additional endorsements on a certificate or license. Since the score from the ACT® and SAT® is being accepted in lieu of the TAP for admission, this exception would apply. Recommendation No change is recommended in response to this comment. Comment A commenter suggested that the rules permit individuals to submit their ACT® and SAT® results for consideration even if they had failed the TAP or the previous test of basic skills five times prior to the date upon which the emergency rules allowing the use of other test results took effect. Analysis Administrative rules cannot be applied retroactively. A candidate who failed the test of basic skills that was available previous to TAP five times may choose either to take the TAP or submit ACT® or SAT® results if he or she achieved the minimum score needed, as identified by the State Board of Education. Anyone who had failed the TAP five times before July 24, 2012, when the emergency rules took effect, would not be allowed to submit ACT® or SAT® results for consideration.


Recommendation No change is recommended in response to this comment. Comment A commenter noted that the statutory requirement to pass the content-area test before beginning an internship may hamper graduate students in speech-language pathology. She indicated that while the students have experience in clinical settings before their final “practicum”, that experience may not have been in schools. Therefore, their performance on the content-area test at the beginning of an internship “does not gather accurate information as to the readiness of the candidate as they exit the program and enter their first job”. She asked that the test be required “toward the end of that practicum experience”. A number of individuals associated with school psychology programs also supported shifting the administration of the content-area test to later in the internship experience since the test is an “applied exam” that is more appropriately administered once candidates have had opportunities to apply what they have learned in school settings. They argued that the Illinois test was intended to be administered at the conclusion of the school psychologist program. They also asked the agency to consider the use of the Praxis II School Psychologist Exam in lieu of Illinois’ content-area test for school psychologist. They indicated that the test is used to obtain national certification and could be administered before the completion of a candidate’s “internship year”. Analysis Section 21B-30(d) requires that candidates pass the content-area test before beginning student teaching, residencies or internships. This requirement was placed into the law in acknowledgement of the need for candidates to be well-versed in and knowledgeable about their subject area before they began working with students. A reference to this statutory requirement was placed into Section 25.720(c)(1), effective July 23, 2012, and is not being amended in this current rulemaking. With that being said, staff in the last several months have become aware of the concerns school service personnel programs have with this requirement. As a remedy, the proposed amendments should require that candidates pass the content-area test no later than the start of the last semester of their internships. Recommendation It is recommended that Section 25.720(c)(1) be modified as follows.

(c)(1) Each candidate seeking an Illinois professional educator license or endorsement on that license, whether his or her first license or endorsement or a subsequent license or endorsement, shall be required to pass a content-area test for each endorsement area for which there is an applicable test (see Section 21B-30(d) of the School Code; also see Section 25.710 of this Part). Further, Section 21B-30(d) of the School Code requires passage of this test before a candidate begins student teaching or an internship or residency required for licensure, or begins serving as a teacher of record. For purposes of internships required for licensure


under this Part or 23 Ill. Adm. Code 30 (Programs for the Preparation of Principals in Illinois), a candidate shall pass the content-area test prior to beginning the last semester of his or her internship. No waivers or exemptions are available.

Comment Two commenters wanted verification that school psychologists would not be required to take the Teacher Performance Assessment. They each suggested a modification to make clear that the assessment is only required of individuals seeking endorsements in a teaching field. Analysis Their suggested revision would improve the rule. Recommendation It is recommended that Section 25.720(e) be modified as follows.

e) Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Beginning September 1, 2015, each candidate completing an educator a teacher preparation program in a teaching field shall be required to pass the TPA (see Section 21B-30(f) of the School Code).

Comment A commenter made a general observation that the State Board should consider eliminating the tests “being forced on teacher candidates”. His reasoning for the recommendation is that since educator preparation programs are accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), they are, by extension, of high quality and produce competent educators in all instances. Analysis The accreditation of an institution or program does not mean that each candidate who successfully completes the institution’s educator preparation program will have sufficiently mastered the skills and acquired the knowledge necessary to be a competent educator. Additionally, each institution probably employs grading systems, offers coursework and prescribes prerequisites that differ. Awarding a license to a candidate based only upon his or her completion of an NCATE-accredited program ignores whether the particular individual has the competence, knowledge and skills required for that license. Finally, staff are unaware of any license issued by the State that is awarded based only on program completion rather than on passage of an examination. Recommendation No change is recommended in response to this comment. Comment


A commenter mentioned that Section 25.720(h) should specify that the 60-day limitation on test retakes via computer does not apply to “different components or subtests of the TAP, only to retaking the same component”. Analysis The individual is correct that a candidate who wishes to retake the math subtest of the TAP, for instance, does not have wait 60 days if he or she just completed the language arts component, and the rule could be clarified in that regard. Recommendation

It is recommended that Section 25.720(h) be modified as follows.

h) Subject to registration in accordance with the provisions of this Subpart I, the

provisions of Section 25.755(g)(1) of this Part, and the limitations of subsection (i) of this Section, an individual who has taken a computer-based test or subtest of the Illinois test of basic skills may retake that test or specific subtest by computer after no fewer than 60 days but also may retake that test or specific subtest during any subsequent, regularly scheduled administration of the test or subtest in paper-and-pencil format.

Comment Several other changes have been made in response to JCAR’s review of the emergency rulemaking. In particular, JCAR asked the agency to place into the rule the process used by the agency in determining the minimum score from the ACT® or SAT® that is acceptable in lieu of a passing score on the TAP. Analysis ACT has established college-ready scores, or as they are called “benchmarks”, on each of the four subtests of the assessments but it does not provide a single composite score for this purpose. For this reason, staff averaged the four individual benchmark scores and rounded up to the next whole number in order to achieve the composite score of 22. Additionally, ACT includes on its website a concordance chart of how results on the SAT® compare to those scores achieved on the ACT®. To make this process clear to candidates, applicants and educator preparation programs, links to the relevant information on the ACT’s website have been added to the rules, and an explanation of the score determination also has been included. Recommendation In response to JCAR’s request, Section 25.720(b)(5)(A) has been modified as follows.

A) The State Superintendent shall announce determine and post on the State Board’s website no later than August 1, 2012 the minimum composite score on each test that will be accepted under this subsection (b)(5). Should either of the minimum scores be modified, the State Superintendent shall inform licensure officers no later than January 1 of the score to be used and shall modify the State Board’s website accordingly.


i) The minimum composite score to be used for the ACT® shall be the average of the college-readiness benchmarks established by ACT® and posted at http://www.act.org/education/benchmarks.html, rounded up to the next whole number.

ii) The minimum composite score for the SAT® shall be the single score

identified by ACT® as comparable to the ACT® score identified pursuant to subsection (b)(5)(A)(i) of this Section and posted at http://www.act.org/aap/concordance/.


http://www.act.org/education/benchmarks.html

http://www.act.org/aap/concordance/

ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT



PART 25

CERTIFICATION

SUBPART A: DEFINITIONS

Section 25.10 Accredited Institution

SUBPART B: CERTIFICATES

Section 25.11 New Certificates (February 15, 2000) 25.15 Standards for Certain Certificates (Repealed) 25.20 Requirements for the Elementary Certificate (Repealed) 25.22 Requirements for the Elementary Certificate (2004) (Repealed) 25.25 Requirements for “Full” Certification 25.30 Endorsement in Teacher Leadership (Through December 31, 2012) 25.32 Teacher Leader Endorsement (Beginning September 1, 2012) 25.35 Acquisition of Subsequent Certificates; Removal of Deficiencies (Repealed) 25.37 Acquisition of Subsequent Teaching Certificates (2004) 25.40 Requirements for the Special Certificate (Repealed) 25.42 Requirements for the Special Certificate (2004) (Repealed) 25.43 Standards for Certification of Special Education Teachers 25.45 Standards for the Initial Special Preschool-Age 12 Certificate – Speech and

Language Impaired 25.46 Special Provisions for the Learning Behavior Specialist I Endorsement 25.47 Special Provisions for the Learning Behavior Specialist I Approval 25.48 Short-Term Emergency Certification in Special Education 25.50 General Certificate (Repealed) 25.60 State Special Certificate, Grades 11-12, For Teaching Elective Subjects

(Repealed) 25.65 Alternative Certification 25.67 Alternative Route to Teacher Certification 25.70 Provisional Vocational Certificate 25.72 Temporary Provisional Vocational Certificate


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 25.75 Part-time Provisional Certificates 25.80 Requirements for the Early Childhood Certificate (Repealed) 25.82 Requirements for the Early Childhood Certificate (2004) (Repealed) 25.85 Special Provisions for Endorsement in Foreign Language for Individuals

Currently Certified 25.86 Special Provisions for Endorsement in Foreign Language for Individuals Prepared

as Teachers But Not Currently Certified 25.90 Transitional Bilingual Certificate and Examination 25.92 Visiting International Teacher Certificate 25.95 Majors, Minors, and Separate Fields for the Illinois High School Certificate

(Repealed) 25.99 Endorsing Teaching Certificates (Repealed) 25.100 Endorsing Teaching Certificates (2004) 25.105 Temporary Substitute Teaching Permit

SUBPART C: APPROVING PROGRAMS THAT PREPARE PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Section 25.110 System of Approval: Levels of Approval (Repealed) 25.115 Recognition of Institutions and Educational Units, and

Approval of Programs 25.120 Standards and Criteria for Institutional Recognition and Program Approval

(Repealed) 25.125 Accreditation Review of the Educational Unit (Repealed) 25.127 Review of Individual Programs (Repealed) 25.130 Interventions by the State Board of Education and State Educator Preparation and

Licensure Board 25.135 Interim Provisions for Continuing Accreditation and Approval – July 1, 2000,

through Fall Visits of 2001 (Repealed) 25.136 Interim Provisions for Continuing Accreditation – Institutions Visited from

Spring of 2002 through Spring of 2003 (Repealed) 25.137 Interim Provisions for Continuing Accreditation and

Approval -- July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000 (Repealed) 25.140 Requirements for the Institution’s Educational Unit Assessment Systems 25.142 Assessment Requirements for Individual Programs 25.145 Approval of New Programs Within Recognized Institutions 25.147 Approval of Programs for Foreign Language Beginning July 1, 2003 25.150 The Periodic Review Process (Repealed)


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 25.155 Procedures for the Initial Recognition of an Institution as an Educator Preparation

Institution and Its Educational Unit 25.160 Notification of Recommendations; Decisions by State Board of Education 25.165 Discontinuation of Programs

SUBPART D: SCHOOL SERVICE PERSONNEL Section 25.200 Relationship Among Credentials in Subpart D 25.210 Requirements for the Certification of School Social Workers (Repealed) 25.215 Certification of School Social Workers (2004) 25.220 Requirements for the Certification of Guidance Personnel (Repealed) 25.225 Certification of School Counselors (2004) 25.227 Interim Certification of School Counselor Interns (2004) 25.230 Requirements for the Certification of School Psychologists (Repealed) 25.235 Certification of School Psychologists (2004) 25.240 Standard for School Nurse Endorsement (Repealed) 25.245 Certification of School Nurses (2004) 25.250 Standards for Non-Teaching Speech-Language Pathologists 25.252 Certification of Non-Teaching Speech-Language Pathologists 25.255 Interim Certification of Speech-Language Pathologist Interns 25.275 Renewal of the School Service Personnel Certificate

SUBPART E: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND

SUPERVISORY STAFF

Section 25.300 Relationship Among Credentials in Subpart E 25.310 Definitions (Repealed) 25.311 Administrative Certificate (Repealed) 25.313 Alternative Route to Administrative Certification (Through August 31, 2013) 25.314 Alternative Route to Administrative Certification for Teacher Leaders 25.315 Renewal of Administrative Certificate 25.320 Application for Approval of Program (Repealed) 25.322 General Supervisory Endorsement (Repealed) 25.330 Standards and Guide for Approved Programs (Repealed) 25.333 General Administrative Endorsement (Repealed) 25.335 General Administrative Endorsement (Through June 30, 2014) 25.337 Principal Endorsement (2012)


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 25.338 Designation as Master Principal (Repealed) 25.344 Chief School Business Official Endorsement (Repealed) 25.345 Chief School Business Official (2004) 25.355 Superintendent Endorsement (Repealed) 25.360 Superintendent (2004) 25.365 Director of Special Education

SUBPART F: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 25.400 Registration of Certificates; Fees 25.405 Military Service 25.410 Revoked Certificates 25.415 Credit in Junior College (Repealed) 25.420 Psychology Accepted as Professional Education (Repealed) 25.425 Individuals Prepared in Out-of-State Institutions 25.427 One-Year Limitation 25.430 Institutional Approval (Repealed) 25.435 School Service Personnel Certificate - Waiver of Evaluations (Repealed) 25.437 Equivalency of General Education Requirements (Repealed) 25.440 Master of Arts NCATE (Repealed) 25.442 Illinois Teacher Corps Programs (Through August 31, 2013) 25.444 Illinois Teaching Excellence Program 25.445 College Credit for High School Mathematics and Language Courses (Repealed) 25.450 Lapsed Certificates 25.455 Substitute Certificates (Repealed) 25.460 Provisional Special and Provisional High School Certificates (Repealed) 25.464 Short-Term Authorization for Positions Otherwise Unfilled 25.465 Credit (Repealed) 25.470 Meaning of Experience on Administrative Certificates (Repealed) 25.475 Renewal Requirements for Holders of Multiple Types of Certificates 25.480 Credit for Certification Purposes (Repealed) 25.485 Certification of Persons with Certificates Previously Denied, Suspended, or

Revoked 25.486 Certification of Persons Who Are Delinquent in the Payment of Child Support 25.487 Certification of Persons with Illinois Tax Noncompliance 25.488 Certification of Persons Named in Reports of Child Abuse or Neglect 25.489 Certification of Persons Who Are in Default on Student Loans 25.490 Certification of Persons Who Have Been Convicted of a Crime 25.493 Part-Time Teaching Interns (Repealed)


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 25.495 Approval of Out-of-State Institutions and Programs (Repealed) 25.497 Supervisory Endorsements

SUBPART G: PARAPROFESSIONALS AND OTHER NONCERTIFICATED PERSONNEL

Section 25.510 Paraprofessionals; Teacher Aides 25.520 Other Noncertificated Personnel (Repealed) 25.530 Specialized Instruction by Noncertificated Personnel (Repealed) 25.540 Approved Teacher Aide Programs (Repealed) 25.550 Approval of Educational Interpreters

SUBPART H: CLINICAL EXPERIENCES Section 25.610 Definitions 25.620 Student Teaching 25.630 Pay for Student Teaching (Repealed)

SUBPART I: ILLINOIS CERTIFICATION TESTING SYSTEM Section 25.705 Purpose - Severability 25.710 Definitions 25.715 Test Validation 25.717 Test Equivalence 25.720 Applicability of Testing Requirement and Scores 25.725 Applicability of Scores (Repealed) 25.728 Use of Test Results by Institutions of Higher Education 25.730 Registration – Paper-and-Pencil Testing 25.731 Registration – Computer-Based Testing 25.732 Late Registration 25.733 Emergency Registration 25.735 Frequency and Location of Examination 25.740 Accommodation of Persons with Special Needs 25.745 Special Test Dates 25.750 Conditions of Testing 25.755 Cancellation of Scores; Voiding of Scores 25.760 Passing Score


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 25.765 Individual Test Score Reports 25.770 Re-scoring 25.775 Institution Test Score Reports 25.780 Fees

SUBPART J: RENEWAL OF STANDARD AND MASTER TEACHING CERTIFICATES Section 25.800 Professional Development Required 25.805 Continuing Professional Development Options 25.807 Additional Specifications Related to Professional Development Activities of

Special Education Teachers 25.810 State Priorities 25.815 Submission and Review of the Plan (Repealed) 25.820 Review of Approved Plan (Repealed) 25.825 Progress Toward Completion (Repealed) 25.830 Application for Renewal of Certificate(s) 25.832 Validity and Renewal of Master Certificates 25.835 Review of and Recommendation Regarding Application for Renewal 25.840 Action by State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board; Appeals 25.845 Responsibilities of School Districts 25.848 General Responsibilities of LPDCs 25.850 General Responsibilities of Regional Superintendents 25.855 Approval of Illinois Providers 25.860 Out-of-State Providers 25.865 Awarding of Credit for Activities with Providers 25.870 Continuing Education Units (CEUs) (Repealed) 25.872 Special Provisions for Interactive, Electronically Delivered Continuing

Professional Development 25.875 Continuing Professional Development Units (CPDUs) 25.880 “Valid and Exempt” Certificates; Proportionate Reduction; Part-Time Teaching 25.885 Funding; Expenses (Repealed)

SUBPART K: REQUIREMENTS FOR RECEIPT OF THE STANDARD TEACHING CERTIFICATE

Section 25.900 Applicability of Requirements in this Subpart 25.905 Choices Available to Holders of Initial Certificates 25.910 Requirements for Induction and Mentoring


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 25.915 Requirements for Coursework on the Assessment of One’s Own Performance 25.920 Requirements for Coursework Related to the National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards (NBPTS) 25.925 Requirements Related to Advanced Degrees and Related Coursework 25.930 Requirements for Continuing Professional Development Units (CPDUs) 25.935 Additional Activities for Which CPDUs May Be Earned 25.940 Examination 25.942 Requirements for Additional Options 25.945 Procedural Requirements 25.APPENDIX A Statistical Test Equating - Certification Testing System 25.APPENDIX B Certificates Available Effective February 15, 2000 25.APPENDIX C Exchange of Certificates 25.APPENDIX D Criteria for Identification of Teachers as “Highly Qualified” in

Various Circumstances 25.APPENDIX E Endorsement Structure Beginning July 1, 2004 AUTHORITY: Implementing Articles 21 and 21B and Section 14C-8 and authorized by Section 2-3.6 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/Art. 21, Art. 21B, 14C-8, and 2-3.6]. SOURCE: Rules and Regulations to Govern the Certification of Teachers adopted September 15, 1977; amended at 4 Ill. Reg. 28, p. 336, effective July 16, 1982; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 5429, effective April 11, 1983; codified at 8 Ill. Reg. 1441; amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 1046, effective January 16, 1985; amended at 10 Ill. Reg. 12578, effective July 8, 1986; amended at 10 Ill. Reg. 15044, effective August 28, 1986; amended at 11 Ill. Reg. 12670, effective July 15, 1987; amended at 12 Ill. Reg. 3709, effective February 1, 1988; amended at 12 Ill. Reg. 16022, effective September 23, 1988; amended at 14 Ill. Reg. 1243, effective January 8, 1990; amended at 14 Ill. Reg. 17936, effective October 18, 1990; amended at 15 Ill. Reg. 17048, effective November 13, 1991; amended at 16 Ill. Reg. 18789, effective November 23, 1992; amended at 19 Ill. Reg. 16826, effective December 11, 1995; amended at 21 Ill. Reg. 11536, effective August 1, 1997; emergency amendment at 22 Ill. Reg. 5097, effective February 27, 1998, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 22 Ill. Reg. 11767, effective June 25, 1998; amended at 22 Ill. Reg. 19745, effective October 30, 1998; amended at 23 Ill. Reg. 2843, effective February 26, 1999; amended at 23 Ill. Reg. 7231, effective June 14, 1999; amended at 24 Ill. Reg. 7206, effective May 1, 2000; emergency amendments at 24 Ill. Reg. 9915, effective June 21, 2000, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 24 Ill. Reg. 12930, effective August 14, 2000; peremptory amendment at 24 Ill. Reg. 16109, effective October 12, 2000; peremptory amendment suspended at 25 Ill. Reg. 3718, effective February 21, 2001; peremptory amendment repealed by joint resolution of the General Assembly, effective May 31, 2001; emergency amendments at 25 Ill. Reg. 9360, effective July 1, 2001, for a maximum of 150 days; emergency expired November 27,


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 2001; emergency amendments at 25 Ill. Reg. 11935, effective August 31, 2001, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 25 Ill. Reg. 16031, effective November 28, 2001; amended at 26 Ill. Reg. 348, effective January 1, 2002; amended at 26 Ill. Reg. 11867, effective July 19, 2002; amended at 26 Ill. Reg. 16167, effective October 21, 2002; amended at 27 Ill. Reg. 5744, effective March 21, 2003; amended at 27 Ill. Reg. 8071, effective April 28, 2003; emergency amendments at 27 Ill. Reg. 10482, effective June 26, 2003, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 27 Ill. Reg. 12523, effective July 21, 2003; amended at 27 Ill. Reg. 16412, effective October 20, 2003; emergency amendment at 28 Ill. Reg. 2451, effective January 23, 2004, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 28 Ill. Reg. 8556, effective June 1, 2004; emergency amendments at 28 Ill. Reg. 12438, effective August 20, 2004, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 29 Ill. Reg. 1212, effective January 4, 2005; amended at 29 Ill. Reg. 10068, effective June 30, 2005; amended at 29 Ill. Reg. 12374, effective July 28, 2005; emergency amendment at 29 Ill. Reg. 14547, effective September 16, 2005, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 29 Ill. Reg. 15831, effective October 3, 2005; amended at 30 Ill. Reg. 1835, effective January 26, 2006; amended at 30 Ill. Reg. 2766, effective February 21, 2006; amended at 30 Ill. Reg. 8494, effective April 21, 2006; amended at 31 Ill. Reg. 10645, effective July 16, 2007; amended at 32 Ill. Reg. 3413, effective February 22, 2008; amended at 32 Ill. Reg. 13263, effective July 25, 2008; emergency amendment at 32 Ill. Reg. 18876, effective November 21, 2008, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 33 Ill. Reg. 5462, effective March 24, 2009; amended at 34 Ill. Reg. 1582, effective January 12, 2010; amended at 34 Ill. Reg. 15357, effective September 21, 2010; amended at 35 Ill. Reg. 4315, effective February 23, 2011; peremptory amendment at 35 Ill. Reg. 14663, effective August 22, 2011; amended at 35 Ill. Reg. 16755, effective September 29, 2011; amended at 36 Ill. Reg. 2191, effective January 24, 2012; amended at 36 Ill. Reg. 12455, effective July 23, 2012; emergency amendment at 36 Ill. Reg. 12903, effective July 24, 2012, for a maximum of 150 days; amended at 36 Ill. Reg. ______, effective ____________.

SUBPART I: ILLINOIS CERTIFICATION TESTING SYSTEM Section 25.720 Applicability of Testing Requirement and Scores

a) It is the individual's responsibility to take the appropriate tests. Upon request, the State Board of Education shall assist individuals in identifying appropriate tests.

b) Basic Skills Test (Test of Academic Proficiency)

Except as provided in subsections (b)(1) and (2) of this Section, each candidate seeking an Illinois certificate ( teaching, administrative, or school service personnel) or license (professional educator license or educator license with stipulations), whether it is his or her first certificate or license or a subsequent


ILLINOIS REGISTER



certificate or license, shall be required to pass a the test of basic skills authorized under Section 21B-30 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/21B-30]. Further, Section 21B-30(c) of the School Code requires passage of this test as a prerequisite to being fully admitted into an enrollment in an Illinois educator preparation program teacher preparation program. 1) A person who has passed the Illinois test of basic skills as a condition of

admittance to an Illinois preparation program approved pursuant to Subpart C of this Part shall not be required to retake that test.

2) A person who has passed the Illinois test of basic skills test and has been

issued an Illinois certificate or license on the basis of the test shall not be required to retake the basic skills test when seeking any subsequent endorsements or other educator licenses.

3) A person who has passed another state’s test of basic skills as a condition of licensure certification or admission to a teacher preparation program shall be required to take the Illinois basic skills test before receiving a certificate or license. (See Section 21B-35 of the School Code.)

4) The Illinois test of basic skills test will be administered as four separate

subtests: reading comprehension, language arts, mathematics, and writing.

A) Individuals may take all four subtests or any combination of the individual subtests during a single test administration.

B) Scores on basic skills subtests can be “banked,” and an individual

will not be required to take a subtest again once he or she has achieved a passing score on that subtest.

C) Each test administration of the Illinois test of basic skills test in

which an examinee participates shall count toward the testing limit established under subsection (i) of this Section, regardless of the number of subtests the examinee includes as part of that particular test administration.

5) In lieu of passing the Illinois test of basic skills, a candidate seeking

admission to an Illinois educator preparation program or applicant for an educator license may submit for consideration his or her composite score from either the ACT® or the SAT®.


ILLINOIS REGISTER



A) The State Superintendent shall announce and post on the State

Board’s website no later than August 1, 2012 the minimum composite score on each test that will be accepted under this subsection (b)(5). Should either of the minimum scores be modified, the State Superintendent shall inform licensure officers no later than January 1 of the score to be used and shall modify the State Board’s website accordingly.

i) The minimum composite score to be used for the ACT®

shall be the average of the college-readiness benchmarks established by ACT® and posted at http://www.act.org/education/benchmarks.html, rounded up to the next whole number.

ii) The minimum composite score for the SAT® shall be the

single score identified by ACT® as comparable to the ACT® score identified pursuant to subsection (b)(5)(A)(i) of this Section and posted at http://www.act.org/aap/concordance/.

B) The candidate or applicant may apply to the State Board of

Education for consideration of his or her ACT® or SAT® results, using a form provided by the State Superintendent of Education for this purpose. The candidate or applicant shall direct ACT® or the College Board to send an official score report of his or her composite score to the address provided on the application form.

C) A composite score meeting the minimum shall be accepted only if

the ACT® or the SAT® that the candidate or applicant completed included a writing component or subtest for which a score is provided.

D) ACT® or SAT® results are subject to the requirements of

subsection (i) of this Section only to the extent that an individual who has failed the Illinois test of basic skills five times shall not rely upon achievement of the minimum composite score on the ACT® or SAT® to be admitted to the educator preparation program or to receive an educator license.


http://www.act.org/education/benchmarks.html

http://www.act.org/aap/concordance/

ILLINOIS REGISTER



6) An educator preparation program may provisionally admit a candidate who is unable to pass each of the four subtests of Illinois’ test of basic skills, provided the following conditions are met:

1) the candidate has taken Illinois’ test of basic skills and has passed

at least one of the four subtests of reading comprehension, language arts, mathematics, and writing; and

2) the educator preparation program provides supports and

remediation designed to assist the candidate in passing the remaining subtests; and

3) the candidate is fully admitted into the educator preparation

program at least one semester before he or she is scheduled to begin student teaching.

7) Except as provided in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section, no

score on the Illinois test of basic skills, including any scores from the ACT® or SAT® permitted to be used under subsection (b)(5) of this Section, shall be more than 10 years old at the time a candidate makes application for full admission into an educator preparation program or applies for any license issued, as may be required under Section 21B-20 of the School Code. For purposes of this subsection (b)(7), “application” shall mean the point in time when the candidate has completed any initial coursework and, as applicable, the institution’s process that is required for full admission into the educator preparation program.

c) Content-Area Tests

1) Each candidate seeking an Illinois certificate or professional educator license or endorsement on that license, whether his or her first certificate or license or endorsement or a subsequent certificate or license or endorsement, shall be required to pass a content-area test for each endorsement area for which there is an applicable test (see Section 21B-30(d) of the School Code; also see Section 25.710 of this Part). Further, Section 21B-30(d) of the School Code requires passage of this test before a candidate begins student teaching or an internship or residency required for licensure, or begins serving as a teacher of record. For purposes of internships required for licensure under this Part or 23 Ill. Adm. Code 30 (Programs for the Preparation of Principals in Illinois), a candidate shall


ILLINOIS REGISTER



pass the content-area test prior to beginning the last semester of his or her internship. No waivers or exemptions are available.

2) A person who has passed a test of language proficiency, authorized under

Section 21B-30 of the School Code, in order to qualify for a transitional bilingual certificate or an educator license with stipulations endorsed for transitional bilingual educator education, and received that certificate or license shall not be required to retake that test in order to qualify for a bilingual education credential on another certificate or professional educator license received later. A person who has passed a test of language proficiency as a condition of admission to an Illinois preparation program shall also not be required to retake that test.

d) Assessment of Professional Teaching (APT)

In order to complete an educator preparation program, each candidate seeking his or her first Illinois early childhood, elementary, secondary, or special certificate or a professional educator license endorsed in a teaching field shall be required to pass the APT relevant to the certificate or endorsement sought (see Section 25.710 of this Part). A candidate seeking a subsequent teaching certificate or endorsement on a professional educator license of one of these types must also pass the APT relevant to the certificate or endorsement sought, unless he or she either: 1) has already passed an APT that encompasses the grade levels of the

subsequent certificate or endorsement sought; or 2) already holds another Illinois professional educator teaching certificate or

a license endorsed in a teaching field that encompasses the grade levels of the certificate or endorsement sought.

e) Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

Beginning September 1, 2015, each candidate completing an educator a teacher preparation program in a teaching field shall be required to pass the TPA (see Section 21B-30(f) of the School Code). 1) Each recognized institution offering approved teacher preparation

programs shall administer the TPA during a candidate’s student teaching experience.


ILLINOIS REGISTER



2) No later than July 1, 2013, each recognized institution offering an

approved teacher preparation program shall begin using the TPA with at least some of its students; however, before September 1, 2015, an institution shall not require passage of the TPA as a condition for program completion for students participating in any limited implementation required under this subsection (e)(2) unless the institution requires that all candidates pass the assessment.

f) Except as provided in subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(2), and (d)(1) of this Section,

for each person seeking an Illinois certificate or license, no passing score on a content area test or the APT may be more than five years old at the time application is made. (See Section 21B-30 of the School Code.) The five-year period shall be calculated from the date the test was taken to the date of receipt of the application by the State Board of Education. Scores more than five years old will not be accepted as part of an application.

1) The five-year period discussed in this subsection (f) shall apply to each

score that forms part of an application received on or after July 1, 2012. 2) The five-year period discussed in this subsection (f) shall also apply to

each score that forms part of an application that is pending as of June 30, 2012, and to each score that forms part of an application for which an evaluation is still valid as of that date pursuant to Section 25.427 of this Part.

g) Subject to registration in accordance with the provisions of this Subpart I, the

provisions of Section 25.755(g)(1) of this Part, and the limitations of subsection (i) of this Section, an individual who has taken a paper-and-pencil test may retake that test during any subsequent, regularly scheduled administration of that test in paper-and-pencil format and may retake that test by computer during any subsequent computer-based test administration.

h) Subject to registration in accordance with the provisions of this Subpart I, the

provisions of Section 25.755(g)(1) of this Part, and the limitations of subsection (i) of this Section, an individual who has taken a computer-based test or subtest of the Illinois test of basic skills may retake that test or specific subtest by computer after no fewer than 60 days but also may retake that test or specific subtest during any subsequent, regularly scheduled administration of the test or subtest in paper-and-pencil format.


ILLINOIS REGISTER



i) Subsequent to January 12, 2010, no individual may attempt to pass the same test

more than five times in any combination of the two formats (i.e., computer-based test or paper-and-pencil format). A score that is voided or cancelled under Section 25.755 of this Part shall be counted toward this five-time limit.

(Source: Amended at 36 Ill. Reg. ______, effective ____________)



TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Monique Chism, Assistant Superintendent Nicki Bazer, General Counsel Agenda Topic: Action Item: Amendments for Adoption – Part 75 (Agricultural

Education Program) Materials: Recommended Rules Staff Contacts: Dora Welker, Interim Division Administrator Purpose of Agenda Item The purpose of this agenda item is to present the proposed amendment for adoption. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan The proposed amendment does not relate directly to the Board’s Strategic Goals since it is a technical modification necessitated by a change in the process by which grant applications are submitted, reviewed and administered. Expected Outcome of Agenda Item The Board will be asked to adopt the amendment to Part 75. Background Information Starting with the FY2013 grant cycle, staff in the College and Career Readiness Division began using the agency’s Electronic Grant Management System (eGMS) to process grant applications for the Incentive Grants for Secondary Agricultural Education program. The eGMS is a self-contained secure system used to submit grant applications, modify budgets, sign certifications and assurances forms required for receipt of a grant, and present end-of-the-year program and fiscal reports. Agency staff also access the system when rating applications and making grant awards. The primary goal of submitting grants through eGMS is to reduce grant preparation time for school districts and other eligible applicants, improve data quality and communications, standardize agency grant applications, and improve the efficiency of the grant review and approval processes. The proposed amendment was published August 31, 2012, in the Illinois Register to elicit public comment; none was received. The version presented for adoption is identical to the version that the Board considered in August. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: Please see “Background” above. Budget Implications: None. Legislative Action: None needed. Communication: Please see “Next Steps” below.


Pros and Cons of Various Actions This technical change is necessary to accurately convey the process by which grantees will submit their final project reports to the State Board. Not proceeding with the rulemaking will cause confusion for grantees and result in the rules being in conflict with agency policy. Superintendent’s Recommendation The State Superintendent recommends that the State Board of Education adopt the following motion:

The State Board of Education hereby adopts the proposed rulemaking for: Agricultural Education Program (23 Illinois Administrative Code 75),




ILLINOIS REGISTER





PART 75

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

SUBPART A: INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION

Section 75.10 Purpose and Applicability 75.20 Eligible Applicants 75.30 Application Procedure 75.40 Program Specifications; Allowable Expenditures 75.50 Criteria for the Review of Proposals; Allocation of Funds SUBPART B: INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

Section 75.200 Purpose and Applicability 75.210 Eligible Applicants 75.220 Program Goals and Minimum Standards 75.230 Quality Indicators 75.240 Determination of Individual Grant Allocations 75.250 Application Procedure 75.260 Terms of the Grant SUBPART C: INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR AGRICULTURAL TEACHER PREPARATION

PROGRAMS Section 75.300 Purpose and Eligible Applicants 75.310 Program Goals and Minimum Standards 75.320 Quality Indicators 75.330 Determination of Individual Grant Allocations 75.340 Application Procedure 75.350 Terms of the Grant


ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT SUBPART D: FACILITATING THE COORDINATION OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

Section 75.400 Purpose and Objectives 75.410 Eligible Applicants 75.420 Application Procedure for Initial Proposals 75.430 Criteria for the Review of Initial Proposals; Allocation of Funds 75.435 Application Content and Approval for Continuation Programs 75.440 Terms of the Grant AUTHORITY: Implementing Sections 2-3.80 and 2-3.80a of the School Code and authorized by Section 2-3.6 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/2-3.80, 2-3.80a and 2-3.6]. SOURCE: Adopted at 32 Ill. Reg. 19170, effective November 26, 2008; amended at 35 Ill. Reg. 16839, effective September 29, 2011; amended at 36 Ill. Reg. ______, effective ____________. SUBPART B: INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

Section 75.260 Terms of the Grant

a) The grantee shall maintain on file documentation specific to its achievement of each quality indicator set forth on the application for funding; the documentation shall be made available for programmatic review and auditing purposes. Up to 10 percent of grantees receiving funding under this Subpart B in each fiscal year may be selected for an on-site review and/or audit.

b) In the event that the grantee closes its agricultural education department, all

instructional materials, tools and equipment purchased with funds provided under this Subpart B shall be relocated by the grantee’s Education for Employment Regional Delivery System to other agricultural education programs located in that system upon approval of the State Superintendent of Education or designee.

c) No subcontracting will be allowed without the prior written approval of the State

Superintendent of Education.

d) Reporting


ILLINOIS REGISTER



1) Each grantee shall complete electronically a final performance report that summarizes the grant activities completed during the term of the grant and the accomplishments achieved. The report shall be completed submit to the State Board of Education’s Division of Career and Technical Education, no later than 90 20 days after the end of the grant period. Funding in any subsequent grant period shall not be approved until the performance report is received., a final budget; this document will serve as the grantee’s final report for the year.

2) Prior to the final reporting deadline specified in subsection (d)(1) of this

Section, each grantee shall submit to its Education for Employment Regional Delivery System director documentation of expenditures and/or information regarding the activities provided with funds awarded under this Subpart B.

e) A grantee that employs any teacher who holds a temporary provisional vocational

certificate shall ensure that the teacher submits documentation to the State Board of Education of his or her completion during the grant year of the coursework that is required under 23 Ill. Adm. Code 25.72 (Temporary Provisional Vocational Certificate).




TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Robert Wolfe, Chief Financial Officer Nicki Bazer, General Counsel Agenda Topic: Action Item: Amendments for Adoption – Part 140 (Calculation of

Excess Cost under Section 18-3 of the School Code) Materials: Recommended Rules Staff Contacts: Tim Imler, Division Administrator Purpose of Agenda Item The purpose of this agenda item is to present the proposed amendments for adoption. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan This agenda item does not relate specifically to the Strategic Plan Goals, as it makes two technical corrections in the rules. Expected Outcome of Agenda Item The Board will be asked to adopt amendments to Part 140. Background Information The Illinois Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) to conduct periodic reviews of the rules of state agencies and to suggest rulemaking when it finds that any agency’s rules are “incomplete, inconsistent, or otherwise deficient”. As a result of such a review, JCAR has asked the agency to make two technical changes in Part 140. The proposed amendments were published August 31, 2012, in the Illinois Register to elicit public comment; none was received. The version presented for adoption is identical to the version that the Board considered in August. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: Please see “Background” above. Budget Implications: None. Legislative Action: None needed. Communication: Please see “Next Steps” below. Pros and Cons of Various Actions The proposed amendments respond to a request by JCAR, the legislative body with responsibility for reviewing administrative rules, and promulgating the changes that it has identified will not increase any mandates on school districts nor contribute appreciably to the work load of the agency. On the other hand, failure to promulgate the amendments could result in further action being taken by JCAR.


Superintendent’s Recommendation The State Superintendent recommends that the State Board of Education adopt the following motion:

The State Board of Education hereby adopts the proposed rulemaking for: Calculation of Excess Cost under Section 18-3 of the School Code (23 Illinois Administrative Code 140),




ILLINOIS REGISTER


NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENTS


CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SUBCHAPTER c: FINANCE

PART 140

CALCULATION OF EXCESS COST UNDER SECTION 18-3 OF THE SCHOOL CODE Section 140.10 Purpose and Applicability 140.20 Allowable Costs 140.30 Requirements for Submission of Claims 140.40 Calculation of Reimbursement AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Section 18-3 of the School Code [105 ILCS 5/18-3]. SOURCE: Adopted at 23 Ill. Reg. 7882, effective July 1, 1999; amended at 25 Ill. Reg. 14122, effective October 22, 2001; amended at 26 Ill. Reg. 8100, effective May 20, 2002; amended at 33 Ill. Reg. 9418, effective June 22, 2009; amended at 36 Ill. Reg. ______, effective ____________. Section 140.30 Requirements for Submission of Claims Each school district shall certify to the State Superintendent of Education, using a format specified by the State Superintendent, its report of claims for tuition payments no later than July 15. (Section 18-3 of the School Code) Claims shall reflect the costs incurred by the school district for the regular school term.

a) When a district files a claim for excess costs relative to individual students who are served in an off-site program, the claim must include: 1) a description of the regular program for which the district also claims

reimbursement under Section 18-3 of the School Code that includes:

A) The name and address of the off-site program; B) The total number of students who received any services in the

regular program;


ILLINOIS REGISTER



C) The total days of attendance of all the students claimed; D) The total number of days for which the program was in session; E) The amount of instruction time offered daily; F) The name, certificate number, and assignment of each professional

staff member who served the students being claimed; and G) A brief description of the curriculum and support services that are

offered in the regular program; 2) a report of the expenditures incurred by the district for the regular off-site

program described pursuant to subsection (a)(1) of this Section, on forms supplied by the State Superintendent of Education;

3) the number of students in average daily attendance in the regular off-site

program described in subsection (a)(1) of this Section during the term to which the claim applies;

4) a record for each student with respect to whom excess cost is being

claimed, indicating:

A) the student’s name and date of birth, B) the services provided to the student that are not included in or that

exceed the level provided in the regular off-site program, C) the amount, intensity, and/or frequency of the services, D) the total hours of service provision, and E) the total cost of the services.

b) When a district files a claim for excess costs relative to students who are served in

the district’s on-site programs, the claim must include:


ILLINOIS REGISTER



1) a description of the services provided that exceed those otherwise provided to students served in the regular program within the attendance center in question, e.g., services not provided to the other students in that attendance center or services provided for more time than to other students within that attendance center; and

2) a record for each student containing the information specified in

subsection (a)(4) of this Section.

c) Each district shall submit any additional information the State Superintendent of Education may require for the purposes of clarifying the basis for its claim.


Section 140.40 Calculation of Reimbursement

a) The cost per student in average daily attendance (ADA) in the regular off-site program provided to students pursuant to Section 18-3 of the School Code will be calculated by dividing the total cost of that program as reported under Section 140.30(a)(2) of this Part by the number of students in average daily attendance in the program.

b) Reimbursable excess cost shall exist with respect to a given student only if the

total costs attributable to that student exceed 120 percent of the district’s per capita tuition charge. The total costs attributable to a student who is served in an off-site program consist of the cost per student in ADA in the program the student attends, derived from the information called for in Section 140.30(a)(1) through (3) 140.30(a)(1)-(3) of this Part, plus any individual cost for that student. The total costs attributable to a student who is served in an on-site program consist of the district’s per capita tuition charge plus any individual cost for that student. In other words:

Cost per student in ADA in the program or district’s per capita tuition charge, as applicable

+ Individual cost for Student X = Subtotal Subtotal from above - 120% of district’s per capita charge


ILLINOIS REGISTER



= Excess cost for Student X

c) If the remainder resulting from the calculation set forth in subsection (b) of this Section is a positive number, that number represents excess cost and shall be reimbursed. If the remainder is a negative number, the district’s cost has been captured by the reimbursement at 120 percent of the per capita tuition charge provided under Section 18-3 of the School Code, and no reimbursable excess cost exists.

d) The State Superintendent may decline to reimburse costs that are not adequately

documented or are inappropriate to a particular student’s placement.




TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Linda Tomlinson, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent Agenda Topic: Request for RFSP-PERA Research Based Study Staff Contact(s): Vicki Phillips, Division Administrator Purpose of Agenda Item The Division of Preparation and Evaluation requests the Board to authorize the State Superintendent to enter into a contract with WESTAT for the completion of the PERA Research Based Study in an amount not to exceed $1,454,900 during the contract period (i.e., execution of the contract to December 31, 2015). Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan The following action will support Goal 2 in the Board’s Strategic Plan. GOAL 2: Every student will be supported by highly prepared and effective teachers and school leaders. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item It is expected that the Board will authorize the State Superintendent to execute the requested contract and authorize completion of the PERA Research Based Study to both fulfill the requirements of the Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 (PERA) and to ensure that systems of evaluation are valid and reliable, contribute to the development of staff, and improve student performance. Background Information The Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 (PERA), as amended by Public Act (P.A.) 97-0008, sets forth a number of changes to Article 24A of the School Code [105ILCS 5/24A] specifically regarding the evaluation of certified instructional staff (i.e. teachers) and principals and assistant principals (hereinafter “principals”). Specifically, PERA sets forth provisions for acknowledging the nexus between educator effectiveness and student performance. This legislation, which was signed into law in January 2010, substantially re-envisions systems for supporting and developing teachers and leaders by tightly aligning student outcomes and effectiveness measures. The critical elements of PERA, from requiring all teacher and principal evaluation systems.to include student growth as a significant factor in evaluations to employing actionable plans for building on reported strengths and addressing documented shortcomings, are fundamental to improving classroom instruction and school leadership. PERA and its implementing regulations establish the requirements and guidelines Illinois school districts must follow for local teachers and principal evaluation systems. The PERA Research Based Study will assess local teacher and principal evaluation systems for validity and reliability, contribution to the development of staff, and improvement of student


performance. Results from the study shall be issued prior to September 1, 2014 and shall be used to make recommendations for changes, if any, that need to be incorporated into teacher and principal evaluation systems that consider student growth as a significant factor in the performance rating. The study will obtain information from Race to the Top Phase 3 application districts, as well as a range of other districts, varying in terms of both size and performance, to meet the following requirements:

• Adequately inform implementation of teacher and principal evaluation systems statewide;

• Analyze the correlation between student growth as measured by State assessments, and student growth as measured by the assessments selected by school districts;

• Analyze full implementation of a PERA-compliant teacher evaluation systems incorporating student growth from school districts including, but not limited to, those receiving Race to the Top Phase 3 grants that are also in the lowest performing 20 percent of school districts;

• Provide recommendations for compliance monitoring and improvement of the evaluation system, including an assessment of peer evaluation systems utilized by Race to the Top Phase 3 districts and their impact on the validity and reliability of district systems;

Additionally, the contractor will be charged with assisting PEAC, ISBE and other stakeholders in analyzing and understanding the results of the 2014 report and the 2015 supplement to determine any necessary adjustments to state regulations for performance evaluations, local preparation and implementation practices, oversight and management systems, and compliance monitoring. On July 19, 2012, ISBE issued a Request for Sealed Proposals (RFSP) for the PERA Research-Based Study with a submission deadline of August 31, 2012. Eligible bidders included public and private entities, including institutions of higher education (IHEs), applied research centers, and professional organizations, with expertise in completing similar large-scale evaluations of educational programs. Two (2) applications were received from WESTAT and Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO). A team of three external reviewers engaged in independent review of the proposals between August 17, 2012-August 20, 2012, using the scoring criteria and rubrics provided by ISBE staff and described in the RFSP. The reviewers included three (3) in-state education experts representing perspectives in teacher leadership, teacher education and education policy. A face to face consensus session was conducted on August 21, 2012, with two ISBE representatives and the reviewers to discuss each proposal, individual reviewer’s scores, and to average the individual scores to arrive at an overall score for each proposal. The readers’ comments are on file in the Division of Preparation and Evaluation in the Springfield office. The criteria reviewed were addressed in the Work Plan Requirements defined in the RFSP and were used to determine the quality and comprehensiveness of each proposal. The scoring rubrics were used to assess the individual applicant’s capacity to deliver the required services and supports (Work Plan) and the evidence presented to describe the qualifications of the


bidder’s proposed staff, including their education, work experience, knowledge, and skills, and were judged against the qualification requirements outlined in the RFSP (Required Qualifications). A total of 1000 points were possible with 500 points being assigned to the Work Plan components and 500 points being assigned to the Required Qualifications components. ISBE seeks through this procurement to secure a vendor to produce a research-based study of educator performance evaluation systems pursuant to the Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 (PERA). This study will assist ISBE and the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) to determine any necessary adjustments to state regulations for performance evaluations, local preparation and implementation practices, oversight and management systems, and compliance monitoring. The contractor will also make recommendations for further analyses and activities to support continuous improvement of the performance evaluation systems beyond 2015. Financial Background The Illinois State Board approved a request to issue a request for sealed proposal on June 21, 2012, to contract with a vendor to complete the PERA Research Based study. Proposals received were from WESTAT and Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO). The Division of Preparation and Evaluation seeks to enter into a contract with the vendor with the highest evaluation scores, WESTAT. The anticipated total amount of the contract is $1,454,900, to be disbursed between the date of contract execution and December 31, 2015. This contract will be supported by federal funds allocated to ISBE under Race to the Top Phase 3. The request for sealed proposal (RFSP) had a 20% Business Enterprise Program (BEP) goal. Westat met the BEP Goal. The financial background of this contract is illustrated in the table below: Current

Contract State Funding

Current Contract Federal Funding

Requested State Funding

Requested Federal Funding

Total Contract Award per Fiscal Year

FY13 $392,693 $392,693 FY14 $471,341 $471,341 FY15 $529,177 $529,177 FY16 $61,526 $61,527 $ Total $1,454,738 Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: The PERA Research Based study was proposed as part of our Race to the Top application. The study is also required pursuant to PERA and section 24A-20(a)(10) of the School Code [105 ILCS 24A-20(a)(10)], which further requires that findings from the study be issued no later than September 1, 2014. Budget Implications: This will be paid with federal Race to the Top Phase 3 funds.


Legislative Action: None Communication: Please see next steps. Superintendent’s Recommendation I recommend that the following motion be adopted:

The State Board hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to enter into a contract with WESTAT, the successful bidder for the PERA Research Based Study. The contract term is from contract execution to December 31, 2015. The contract will not exceed $1,454,738.

Next Steps Upon approval, the notice of contract award will be posted on the Illinois Procurement Bulletin website. When all posting requirements have been met the State Superintendent will enter into a contract with the successful bidder in accordance with Board approval.



TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Susan Morrison, Deputy Superintendent/Chief Education Officer

Agenda Topic: Contract Exceeding $1 Million: Request to award the contract for 21st

Century Community Learning Center Technical Assistance Staff Contact(s): Monique M. Chism, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent for the Center for

Innovation and Improvement Dora Welker, Acting Division Administrator for College and Career Readiness Purpose of Agenda Item The Center of Innovation & Improvement and the Division of College and Career Readiness requests the Board to authorize the State Superintendent to award a contract for technical assistance to 21st CCLC grantees which will exceed $1 million over 5 years to Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan The 21st CCLC contract will support the following Board goal.

GOAL 1: Every student will demonstrate academic achievement and be prepared for success after high school.

Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item It is expected that the Board will authorize the State Superintendent to execute the contract subject to staff recommendations.

Background Information The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is authorized under Title IV, Part B, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Grants are made available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to state education agencies (SEAs) to provide subgrants to eligible entities. The grant supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools. The program helps meet state and local standards in core academic subjects, such as reading and math; offers students a broad array of enrichment activities that can complement their regular academic programs; and offers literacy and other educational services to the families of participating children. Applicants for the Technical Assistance contract included any public or private entity, not-for-profit organizations, Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), individuals with the necessary expertise and who can demonstrate the qualifications required by this RFSP, with proven success in the provision of technical assistance and professional development activities and that is knowledgeable about after-school programming are eligible to apply.


The reauthorized federal legislation allows for up to 3 percent of the state’s annual allocation to be used for state-level activities that include monitoring and evaluating programs and related activities; providing capacity-building, training and technical assistance specific to grantees; comprehensively evaluating the effectiveness of programs and activities; and providing training and technical assistance to eligible organizations that are applicants for, or recipients of, awards.

The purpose of this RFSP is to hire a contractor to provide technical assistance to the State and professional development to 21st CCLC grantees. For activities involving the statewide evaluation, the contractor will be expected to work with the statewide evaluator that is hired under a separate contract. There is a BEP goal of 5% to be included in the contract proposal. Financial Background The Illinois State Board approved a request to issue a request for sealed proposal on November 3, 2011 to contract with a vendor to provide technical assistance to the State and professional development to 21st CCLC grantees. Proposals were received from Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) and American Institutes for Research (AIR). The Division of College and Career Readiness seeks to enter into a contract with the vendor with the highest evaluation scores, SEDL The anticipated amount for the initial term is $597,975 with 4 possible one-year renewals. The maximum amount available for the full complement of work will be $2,995,927. The initial term of this contract will begin no sooner than November 1 and will extend from the execution date of the contract agreement to June 30, 2013. This contract will be funded by a 21st Century federal grant. The request for sealed proposal (RFSP) had a 5% Business Enterprise Program (BEP) goal. SEDL was unable to identify a BEP vendor. The BEP goal will be addressed during contract negotiations. The financial background of this contract is illustrated in the table below: Current

Contract State Funding

Current Contract Federal Funding

Requested State Funding

Requested Federal Funding

Total Contract Award per Fiscal Year

FY13 $597,975 $597,975 FY14 $599,236 FY15 $599,214 FY16 $599,836 FY17 $599,666 Total $2,995,927 Effectiveness The impact of the 21st CCLC program is determined by examining seven goals and performance objectives which include:

1) student involvement in school activities; 2) student achievement;


3) positive behavioral changes in students; 4) community benefits; 5) expanded learning opportunities; 6) professional development opportunities for program personnel; and 7) efficient and effective use of funds.

The Division works with the Technical Assistance Provider to support the 21st CCLC grantees in the achievement of the goals and objectives. The contractor will provide the following specific activities: Activity 1: State-Sponsored Workshops The contractor must provide biannual workshops in the fall and spring of each year in specific areas of the state: Northern Illinois for the spring conference, and Central Illinois for the fall workshop. Activity 2: Technical Assistance and Professional Development In conjunction with ISBE, the contractor will be responsible for analyzing the needs of grantees through the use of needs assessments, workshop and meeting evaluations, site visits, and the results from the statewide external evaluation. The results of the needs assessment will help determine the type of technical assistance and professional development that is offered to grantees. Activity 3: Quality Programs and Assessment and Peer Advisors Training ISBE is implementing a Quality Advising Initiative to be implemented with the 21st CCLC grantees. In this initiative grantees will use a quality/needs assessment in their projects to determine if they have a high-quality program and implement an improvement plan to develop a high quality program in areas that may need development. In each year of the contract, the contractor will provide assistance to ISBE staff related to the Quality Peer Advisors.

Activity 4: Development of Materials The contractor will assist ISBE in developing materials for the State to provide tools and resources for the 21st CCLC program. Materials to be created will aid the 21st CCLC grantees in developing and creating quality programs.

Activity 5: Data Gathering and Analysis The contractor will provide ongoing assistance with data gathering relative to the annual performance report (APR) that ISBE must submit to the U.S. Department of Education by the federally required date. The contractor will serve as a liaison between ISBE and grantees in this data-gathering process. Activity 6: Communication and Reporting The contractor will be responsible for thorough and timely communication to ISBE. The major emphasis of communication will be to establish communication mechanisms with ISBE; develop and moderate a listserv that facilitates communication among grantees; monitor and maintain the 21st CCLC portal website; and create a network for grantees to interact with one another through facilitation of peer site visits The contractor is required to submit to ISBE each month a written status report of all activities contained in the contract, as well as submitting other reports as outlined under each activity above.


Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: None

Budget Implications: The 21st CCLC program is funded entirely by federal Title IV Part B 21st CCLC funds.

Legislative Action: None

Communication: None Superintendent’s Recommendation I recommend that the following motion be adopted:

The State Board hereby authorizes the State Superintendent to enter into a contract with SEDL which was the successful bidder under the RFSP for 21st CCLC Technical Assistance. The cost of the initial term of the contract is $597,975 from November 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. This contract will have 4 optional 1-year renewals. The cumulative contract will not exceed $3,000,000.

Next Steps

Upon approval, the notice of contract award will be posted on the Illinois Procurement Bulletin website. When all the posting requirements have been met the State Superintendent will enter into a contract with the successful bidder in accordance with Board approval.



TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Susan Morrison, Deputy Superintendent/Chief Education Officer Agenda Topic: 21st Century Community Learning Center grant awards Staff Contact(s): Monique M. Chism, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent, Center for Innovation

and Improvement Dora Welker, Acting Division Administrator, College and Career Readiness

Division Purpose of Agenda Item The Division of College and Career Readiness requests the Board to authorize the State Superintendent to award the 21st Century Community Learning Center grants in fiscal year (FY) 2013 with one or more public or private entities eligible for the funds. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan The 21st CCLC grants will support the following Board goal.


Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item It is expected that the Board will authorize the State Superintendent to award grants subject to staff recommendations.

Background Information Illinois receives funds based on a formula from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Title IV Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). A total $15 million dollars of funding is available for FY13 awards through a competitive grant process. The 2013 awards will be for a five year period and subsequent fiscal years are contingent upon a sufficient appropriation for the program and satisfactory progress in the preceding grant period. The purpose of the 21st CCLC grant program is to provide before and after school programs for students who are in schools with a poverty rate of 40% or higher. Priority is given to schools that are Title I eligible and in academic improvement status. The programs provide academic enrichment opportunities for students to assist schools in making Adequate Yearly Progress. Competitive Priority Points were given to applications that are serving only schools in federal or state status, the lowest performing schools on the Tier I and Tier II list, proposals for innovative programs, and middle and high school programs. The maximum award amount per school is $150,000 and the minimum amount is $50,000. Each applicant may also request funds for as many eligible schools as they may have the capacity to serve.


Summary of Process for Grant Competition Recommendations On July 18, 2012, ISBE issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 21st CCLC Grants funded under Title IV Part B formula grant program, with a submission deadline of September 18, 2012. Twenty-nine (29) school districts (LEAs); fifty (50) community- and faith- based organizations; two (2) universities; and six (6) regional offices of education submitted a total of 104 proposals requesting a total of $33,108,353. The review of the FY 2013 21st CCLC proposals and development of the Recommendation for Funding list involved a multi-step process as follows: External Review A team of thirty-four external reviewers, chosen by ISBE, conducted an independent review of all proposals from September 24 through October 1, 2012, using the scoring criteria and rubrics provided in the RFP. These reviewers were identified through a national search that was conducted to identify reviewers with extensive experience in 21st CCLC programming, after school programming, grantsmanship, previous grant reading experience and project management, as well as experience working with districts and schools. The applications were provided to the reviewers through an electronic file transfer protocol (FTP) process developed in our technology department. The reviewers only had access to the applications they were assigned. Each proposal was read by three (3) reviewers. Each reviewer was to “recommend, recommend with conditions, or not recommend” the proposal in addition to providing a total point score based on the rubric. Each reader was also to assist ISBE in deciding if the applicant was eligible for the competitive priority points. For an applicant to be eligible for competitive priority points they must have earned a minimum of seventy (70) points on the proposal narrative before the competitive priority points were added to the scores average. ISBE Review of Findings ISBE’s College and Career Readiness Division reviewed and verified each of the scoring rubrics. The three reviewer scores were then averaged to generate a proposal score; proposals earning at least 70 points and designated by the reviewers as eligible for priority points then received these additional points. This memo conveys the recommendations for funding for thirty-seven (37) FY 2013 21st CCLC Grants for $14,444,625 on behalf of 110 schools with the understanding that each of the projects agrees to the “Conditions of Funding” identified by the external reviewers (See Appendix A). The conditions for funding will ensure the implementation of the grant will align with the non-regulatory guidance for 21st CCLC, the RFP, and fiscal guidelines. There are sixty-seven (67) proposals not recommended for funding (See Appendix B). Recommendations were determined by rank ordering proposals based on their final score and awarding proposals based on the amount of available funding. Effectiveness The impact of the 21st CCLC program is determined by examining seven performance objectives which include:

1) student involvement in school activities;


2) student achievement; 3) positive behavioral changes in students; 4) community benefits; 5) expanded learning opportunities; 6) professional development opportunities for program personnel; and 7) efficient and effective use of funds.

The Division conducts an annual evaluation and results from the 2010-2011 evaluation indicate that, overall, Illinois grantees showed improvements in all seven of the above-mentioned areas. In 2010-2011, Illinois had 128 active grants with 361 operational centers, which served a total of 53,662 students, of whom 26,984 (50.29%) were regular attendees who attended more than 30 days, and 9,373 family adults. Regular students were mostly low-income (86.5%). Seventy-nine (79) grantees had sites at the elementary level, 90 at the middle/junior high, and 53 grantees served high school students. Sites were operational an average of 13.70 hours per week. Sub-grantees were educational institutions (52.3%), community-based organizations (47.7%), and faith-based organizations (0.8%). Over 90% of the sites were in public schools even if they were managed by a community-based organization. The percentage of low-income students who met or exceeded state standards increased 6.77 percentage points in reading and 2.4 percentage points in mathematics from 2010 to 2011. For non-low income 21st CCLC participants smaller gains were noted. The Executive Summary of the most recent final report for the 21st CCLC Illinois Annual Statewide Evaluation for 2010-2011 is included as an attachment to this memo and provides an overview of the findings in each area. Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: None

Budget Implications: The 21st CCLC program is funded entirely by federal Title IV Part B 21st CCLC funds.

Legislative Action: None

Communication: None Superintendent’s Recommendation I recommend that the following motion be adopted: At this time, I recommend that $14,444,625 of the Illinois 21st CCLC Grant Program funds be used to fund thirty-seven (37) FY 2013 21st CCLC projects. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you. Attachments:

A. Recommendations for Funding B. Non-Recommendations for Funding C. Draft Superintendent Award Letter D. 2010-2011 21st CCLC Statewide Evaluation Executive Summary

Next Steps Upon Board authorization, Agency staff will notify grantees of the award through a letter from the Superintendent.


Appendix A Recommendations for Funding

Applicant Region Number of Schools

New or Previously

Funded Total Requested Total Score

East St. Louis SD 189 V 5 Previously

Funded 551,250.00 125 Illinois Alliance for Boys and Girls Club V 1 150,000.00 118 Illinois Alliance for Boys and Girls club I-C 2 300,000.00 118 Illinois Alliance for Boys and Girls club I-C 1 150,000.00 118 Illinois Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs I-A 3 New 450,000.00 118 Regional Office of Education 27 III 1 New 150,000.00 115 Northeastern Illinois University I-A 4 New 600,000.00 114 Chicago Public School District 299 I-A 21 New 3,150,000.00 113 Center for Community Academic Success Partnerships (CCASP) I-A 2

Previously Funded 175,000.00 112

Mount Vernon City School District 80 VI 1


Fox Valley Park District I-C 4 New 600,000.00 110 Youth Organizations Umbrella Inc. (Y.O.U.) I-B-D 1 New 150,000.00 110 America SCORES Chicago I-A 3 New 450,000.00 110 Regional Office of Education 49 II 1 New 138,000.00 109 Aurora East SD 131 I-C 3 New 450,000.00 109 Columbia College Chicago I-A 3 New 450,000.00 107 Alternative Schools Network I-A 1 New 150,000.00 107 Central States SER - Jobs for Progress, Inc. I-A 2 New 300,000.00 107

Boys & Girls Club of Chicago 1-A 3 Previously

Funded 283,500.00 107

Benton CHSD 103 VI 1 Previously

Funded 98,475.00 105

Springfield Urban League, Inc. III 2 Previously

Funded 272,218.00 105


Applicant Region Number of Schools

New or Previously

Funded Total Requested Total Score

Regional Office of Education 28 II 8 New 999,520.00 105 Illinois Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs I-C 1


Metropolitan Family Services I-A 3 Previously

Funded 424,067.00 104 Christopher Unit SD 99 VI 1 New 129,647.00 103

Nicasa I-C 2 Previously

Funded 136,840.00 103 Harold Colbert Jones Memorial Community Center I-B-C 2 New 230,186.00 103 Thornton Fractional THSD 215 I-B-C 2 New 134,000.00 103 DuQuoin CUSD 300 VI 2 New 332,742.00 102

Decatur PSD 61 IV 4 Previously

Funded 310,725.00 102 Youth Organizations Umbrella Inc. (Y.O.U.) I-B-D 1 New 150,000.00 102 Youth Organizations Umbrella Inc. (Y.O.U.) I-B-D 1 New 120,000.00 101 Family Focus, Inc. I-B-B 1 New 150,000.00 101

Family Focus, Inc. I-B-B 1 Previously

Funded 108,000.00 101 Family Focus, Inc. I-A 1 New 150,000.00 101

Family Focus, Inc. I-A 1 Previously

Funded 105,000.00 101 Venice School District 3 V 1 New 149,956.00 100 Rochelle CCSD 231 II 4 New 435,669.00 100 Center for Community Academic Success Partnerships (CCASP) I-A 4 New 400,000.00 100 Boys and Girls Club of Chicago 1-B-C 1 New 150,000.00 100 Boys & Girls Club of Chicago 1-A 1 New 150,000.00 100 Urbana School District 116 IV 2 New 300,000.00 99 Quad Communities Development Corporation I-A 1 New 150,000.00 99

Total 110 14,444,625.00


Appendix B Not Recommend for Funding

Applicant Region New or Previous Total Requested Total Score

TAP In Leadership Academy IV New 450,000.00 97

Youth Organizations Umbrella Inc. (Y.O.U.) I-B-D New 150,000.00 97

Coordinated Youth & Human Services V New 150,000.00 96

Youth Organizations Umbrella Inc. (Y.O.U.) I-B-D New 120,000.00 96

Joliet THSD 204 I-C Previously Funded 236,086.00 96 Rockford PSD 205 II New 300,000.00 94

Homework Hangout, Inc. IV New 150,000.00 94

Project Success of Vermilion County IV New 299,983.00 94

Breakthrough Urban Ministries I-A Previously Funded 98,475.00 94

Woodlawn Children's Promise Community I-A New 300,000.00 94

Regional Office of Education 56 I-C New 737,000.00 93 Massac County CUSD 1 VI New 300,000.00 93 East St. Louis SD 189 V New 450,000.00 93 Chicago Youth Centers I-A New 450,000.00 92 OMNI Youth Services II New 150,000.00 92 Benton CCSD 47 VI New 150,000.00 90

Regional Office of Education 49 II New 127,160.00 90

Berwyn South SD 100 I-B-B Previously Funded 442,486.00 90



Brighton Park Neighborhood Council I-A 300,000.00 90


Regional Office of Education 49 II 146,088.00 87 School District U-46 I-C New 892,596.00 87

Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education (CAPE) I-A New 150,000.00 85 Hoover-Schrum SD 157 I-B-C New 297,099.00 74

Driven and Empowered Youth, Inc. I-A New 150,000.00 69 Woodstock CUSD 200 II New 149,785.00 68 Madison CUSD 12 V New 150,000.00 68

Regional Office of Education 28 II Previously Funded 202,713.00 68

BUILD, Inc. I-A Previously Funded 98,478.00 68 Gads Hill Center I-A New 150,000.00 68

Chicago Commons Association I-A New 150,000.00 67


Greater Auburn Gresham Development Corporation I-A New 150,000.00 65 East Richland CUSD 1 VI New 150,000.00 63

Regional Office of Education 27 III New 150,000.00 62

Corazon Community Services I-B-B New 150,000.00 62



America Baila: Folkdance Company of Chicago I-A New 495,826.00 61

Institute for Positive Living I-A New 150,000.00 61

Instituto del Progreso Latino I-A New 300,000.00 60

Academy for Urban School Leadership I-A New 450,000.00 60

Round Lake Area Schools District 116 I-C Previously Funded 750,000.00 60

Children's Home & Aid Society of Illinois I-A Previously Funded 189,000.00 60

Uhlich Children's Advantage Network (UCAN) I-A New 296,705.00 58

Dolton West School District 148 I-B-C Previously Funded 766,230.00 57 Matli Arts Center I-A New 449,660.00 57 Youth Crossroads I-B-B New 150,000.00 56 CHSD 218 I-B-C New 447,023.00 56

Children's Home & Aid Society of Illinois I-A New 150,000.00 55

Regional Office of Education 09 IV New 149,879.00 54 Calumet Public SD 132 I-B-C New 150,000.00 51

Project Success of Vermilion County IV Previously Funded 150,000.00 50

Southwest Organizing Project I-A New 150,000.00 49



Urban Gateways: Center for Arts Education I-A New 450,000.00 49 Bourbonnais ESD 53 IV New 150,666.00 47

SGA Youth & Family Services I-A New 600,000.00 47

Regional Office of Education 35 II New 1,273,835.00 46 Lighthouse Youth Center I-A New 146,736.00 46

Boys & Girls Club of Freeport & Stephenson County II New 291,974.00 45

Femi Memorial Outreach I-A New 217,373.00 45

Country Club Hills SD 160 I-B-C Previously Funded 250,000.00 41

Fairview Heights Youth Sports V New 150,000.00 38

Calumet Public SD 132 I-B-C Previously Funded 254,000.00 38 Gads Hill Center I-A New 150,000.00 36

Firman Community Services, Inc. I-A Previously Funded 250,000.00 35

The Success Center Institute I-B-C New 150,000.00 31 Galesburg CUSD 205 III New 150,000.00 3 Pembroke CCSD 259 IV New 150,000.00 2 18,735,734.00


Illinois State Board of Education 100 North First Street • Springfield, Illinois 62777-0001 www.isbe.net Gery J. Chico Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D. Chairman State Superintendent of Education

Attachment C Draft of Award Letter

Date Name and address Dear_______________: I am pleased to inform you that the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has approved your grant application for 21st Century Community Learning Center for Fiscal Year 2013. Following this award letter, subsequent correspondence will be sent to you outlining the process to complete any necessary refinements in the program or fiscal components of your application. The starting and ending dates of your project will be noted in the grant agreement which will be provided to you after all approvals have been secured. Further negotiations for subsequent fiscal years are contingent upon a sufficient appropriation for the program and satisfactory progress in the preceding grant period. Congratulations on the approval of your grant. If you have any questions or need technical assistance at any time during the project period, do not hesitate to contact Kristy Jones by email [email protected] or Joyce Krumtinger by email [email protected] or by phone at 217-524-4832. Sincerely, Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D. State Superintendent of Education cc: (contact person) Regional Office of Education


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Illinois Annual Statewide Evaluation Program Year 2010-2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Penny Billman, Ph.D. University of Illinois, Rockford

Health Policy and Social Science Research Rockford, IL

J. Harvey Smith, Ph.D.

Northern Illinois University Illinois Interactive Report Card

Department of History DeKalb, IL

Scott Brady, B.S.

University of Illinois, Rockford Health Policy and Social Science Research

Rockford, IL

December 2011


Executive Summary, 21st CCLC Illinois Annual Statewide Evaluation PY 2010-2011 Page 1

Executive Summary The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program (21st CCLC), authorized under Title IV, Part B, of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, has three specific purposes: “(1) provide opportunities for academic enrichment, including providing tutorial services to help students (particularly students in high-poverty areas and those attending low-performing schools) meet Illinois and local student performance standards in core academic subjects such as reading and mathematics; (2) offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities, such as youth development activities, drug and violence prevention programs, counseling programs, art, music, and recreation programs, technology education programs, and character education programs that are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students; and (3) offer families served by community learning centers opportunities for literacy and related educational development.”1 The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) identified seven goals for the 21st CCLC program, each with objectives, performance indicators, and metrics. The external evaluation team used a multi-method approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data to provide evidence of the implementation and effectiveness of the 21st CCLC program in Illinois. Data sources included on-site visits to a selection of 21st CCLC sub-grantee programs; growth model analysis of students’ state assessment data; fall and spring online surveys completed by the sub-grantees; interviews/e-mails with sub-grantees and ISBE personnel; content analysis of sub-grantees’ original funded proposal, continuation applications, annual local evaluations, and annual federal Profile and Performance Reports (PPICS); program documentation on the 21st CCLC portal; and sub-grantees’ websites and newsletters. This executive summary includes three parts: Summary of Implementation, Summary of Outcomes, and Recommendations for 2012.

1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs (February 2003). 21st Century Community Learning Centers, Non-Regulatory Guidance. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/guidance2003.pdf

Seven Goals for State of Illinois 21st CCLC Program Goal 1: Schools will improve student achievement in core academic areas. Goal 2: Schools will show an increase in student attendance and graduation from high school. Goal 3: Schools will see an increase in the social-emotional skills of their students. Goal 4: Program will collaborate with the community. Goal 5: Programs will coordinate with schools to determine the students and families with the greatest need. Goal 6: Programs will provide ongoing professional development to program personnel. Goal 7: Programs will collaborate with schools and community-based organizations to provide sustainable

programs.



Part 1. Summary of Implementation 1. What were the general characteristics of the 21st CCLC projects and whom did they

serve? • In 2010-2011, Illinois had 128 active grants with 361 operational sites/centers, which

served 53,662 total students, of whom 26,984 (50.29%) were regular attendees (attended 30 or more days), and 9,373 family adults.

Five-Year Summary of 21st CCLC Programs in Illinois

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Number of Sub-grant Projects 113 115 108 1292 128 Number of Sites/Centers 341 336 311 371 361 Total Students Served 46,107 44,948 43,243 54,461 53,662 Regular Attendees 30 or more days 24,957 24,206 23,027 25,242 26,984 Percentage of Regular Attendees 54.13% 53.85% 53.25% 46.35%3 50.29% Total Adult Participants 8,809 4,862 5,738 8,709 9,373 Mean Student Attendance per Site 134 135 139 150 149 Median Student Attendance Per Site 111 110 113 113 113 Average Hours Open per Week 13.08 10.69 12.67 13.81 13.70 Median Hours Open per Week 12 12 12 12 12

Source: PPIC Submissions, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; Illinois Annual Survey, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010; 21st CCLC Illinois Annual Spring Survey, 2011.

• 79 sub-grantees had sites at the elementary level (PK-6), 90 sub-grantees had sites with

programming for students in grades 6-8, and 53 sub-grantees served high school students. Some sites served multiple levels.

• Sites were operational an average of 13.70 hours per week.

• The projects vary greatly in terms of number of sites, number of students served, and

grade levels’ Locations were across the state and population centers.

• Sub-grantees were educational institutions (52.3%), community-based organizations (47.7%), and faith-based organizations (0.8%).

• Over 90% of the sites were in public schools even if they were managed by a

community-based organization.

2 The annual number of active projects increased from 113 to 130; however, one site became inactive in 2009-2010 and another in 2010-2011. The number of middle school and high school sites increased significantly in 2010. 3 The grantees added in 2009-2010 focused on the middle and high school students.



2. To what extent are the sub-grant recipients implementing the activities and evaluation plans proposed in their RFPs and as revised in their annual continuation requests?

• The majority of sub-grantees are implementing their projects with fidelity to their

proposals and continuation plans. Over the past five years, ISBE staff members have diligently provided sub-grantees with critical operational parameters and continuation application forms that direct the sub-grantees’ attention and energies to those activities funded. The compliance monitoring program implemented by ISBE in 2010-2011 greatly improved the fidelity of implementation by the sub-grantees.

• Approximately 70% of the funded slots were filled with students in 2010-2011 compared

to 43% in 2009-2010.

• The academic component meets or exceeds standards in most programs: elementary level (86%), middle/junior high (88.5%), and high school (91%).

• The sub-grantees struggle with the 21st CCLC requirements for family programming:

elementary level programs – 60% met/exceeded requirements in 2011 compared to 30% in 2010; middle/junior high programs – 58% in 2011 compared to 49% in 2010; and high school programs - 46% in 2011 compared to 44% in 2010.

• Professional development for leaders and staff has been fully implemented in 85% of the

sub-grants compared to 75% in 2010. 3. Which factors hindered the sub-grantees in reaching the 21st CCLC objectives?

• The focused professional development and compliance monitoring implemented by

ISBE in 2010-2011 helped sub-grantees in reaching their 21st CCLC objectives. The percentages of sub-grantees struggling with inconsistent student attendance decreased significantly. Approximately 20% of the sub-grantees need more dedicated help with this barrier compared to approximately 65% last year.

• Even though the sub-grantees are supported by the parents, increasing parent

involvement especially at the high school level is an ongoing challenge. 4. Did the 21st CCLC program personnel find the data collection methods and evaluation

resources, in particular PPICS, useful and relevant in documenting their programs and outcomes?

• Nearly all sub-grantees indicated that the PPICS collection is relevant; however, several

recommendations to improve PPICS were identified, including the implementation of a student growth model, quality metrics, and more coordination of the data collection at a statewide level.



Part II. Summary of Outcomes 5. What impact does the program have on student achievement, including homework

completion, classroom grades, promotions, and performance on the state assessments? (Goal 1)

• A cohort growth model was used to measure student achievement. For example, all

students in 21st CCLC programs in 2011 who were in 4th grade composed the 4th grade cohort. For each student, his/her ISAT performance in grade 4 was compared to his/her performance in grade 3.

• The percentage of low-income students who met or exceeded state standards increased

6.77 percentage points in reading and 2.4 percentage points in mathematics from 2010 to 2011. For non-low income 21st CCLC participants, smaller gains were noted in the percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards: an increase of 3.01 percentage points for reading and 0.40 percentage points for mathematics.

• The changes in percentages of students who met or exceeded state standards show

that the greatest increases in reading were in the Grade 6 and Grade 8 cohorts. • The greatest increases in the percentages of students meeting or exceeding state

standards in mathematics were in the middle school years. • Changes in the scaled scores of the growth cohorts are shown below.

2011 Cohort

Number of Students

ISAT Scaled Score in Reading 2010 2011

Mean Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation

Grade 4 2103 193.2 26.48 204.3 24.90 Grade 5 2045 201.4 25.01 215.1 23.90 Grade 6 2741 217.5 24.32 228.6 22.93 Grade 7 2750 226.7 23.33 232.0 25,03 Grade 8 2494 230.2 24.34 240.4 19.68

2011 Cohort

Number of Students

ISAT Scaled Score in Mathematics 2010 2011

Mean Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation

Grade 4 2113 204.2 26.09 217.1 23.97 Grade 5 2058 213.3 23.49 227.8 25.20 Grade 6 2750 228.1 25.52 241.8 26.52 Grade 7 2755 240.8 25.84 252.0 27.34 Grade 8 2502 250.1 24.09 263.5 24.09

• About two-thirds of the classroom teachers indicated 21st CCLC students improved in “turning in of homework” and 72% agreed students improved in “completing homework to the teachers’ satisfactions”.

• Classroom teachers reported that 71% of the students attending 30 or more days had

improved their academic performance.



• Classroom teachers indicated that significant proportion of students showed improvement in math performance at the elementary (84%), middle/junior high (74%), and high school levels (79%). In reading, significant proportions of students improved academically at the elementary (88%), middle/junior high (84%), and high school levels (79%).

• From 2007 through 2010, classroom teachers reported that 72% to 73% of 21st CCLC

elementary students improved their homework completion and classroom participation compared to 68% to 73% reported by teachers in states similar to Illinois. At the high school level, teachers indicated 65% to 72% of the students improved compared to 65% to 70% in teachers in similar states.

. • From 2007 through 2011, approximately one-third of the 21st CCLC students increased

their grade at least a half grade in reading and in mathematics and approximately one-fourth had a decrease.

Percentages of Students with Half Grade Change

Mathematics Range of Percentages in 2007 to 2011 Time Span Decreased Grade

(2011 in parentheses) Remained Same Grade (2011 in parentheses)

Improved Grade (2011 in parentheses)

30-59 Days 25.0 - 28.0 (28.0) 38.0 - 42.1 (42.1) 30.0 - 36.3 (30.0) 60-89 Days 22.1 - 25.8 (24.7) 35.8 - 44.6 (44.6) 30.7 - 42.1 (30.7) 90+ Days 21.2 – 25.1 (21.8) 36.0 - 45.6 (45.6) 32.6 - 42.8 (32.6) Reading Range of Percentages in 2007 to 2011 Time Span 30-59 Days 23.1 – 25.1 (25.1) 39.5 – 43.2 (43.2) 31.7 – 38.9 (31.7) 60-89 Days 19.2 – 22.0 (22.0) 37.5 – 47.1 (47.1) 30.8 - 43.3 (30.8) 90+ Days 17.5 – 20.8 (20.1) 37.1 – 46.9 (46.9) 33.0 - 45.4 (33.0)

6. What effect does the program have on youth behaviors as measured by changes in

classroom behavior, attendance rates, involvement in school activities, attitudes toward school and learning, disciplinary referrals, and dropout and graduation rates? (Goal 2 and Goal 3)

• 89% of the elementary sub-grantees, 88% of the middle/junior high sub-grantees, and

92% of the high school sub-grantees reported an observed increased in students’ involvement in school activities.

• Data on changes in students’ behaviors and attitudes has remained relatively stable

from 2007 to 2010 according to their classroom teachers’ perceptions. The figure below shows the 2011 data.



Percentages of Students Who Improved According to Classroom Teacher

Participating in Class Attending Class Regularly Attentive in Class

Source: PPICS Survey, 2011 • Classroom teachers indicated that 63.5% of the 21st CCLC students had improved in

motivation and 60% improved in getting along with others.

Percent of All Regular Students Improving in Behavior

Improved Motivation Improve Volunteering Get Along with Others Improved Behavior Source: PPICS Teacher Survey, 2007, 2008, 2009.2010, 2011

• Illinois sub-grantees did not collect sufficient documentation on disciplinary referrals, dropout rates, promotions, and graduation rates to assess these Illinois performance indicators.

19.3 19.9 21.6 18.6 20.1 22.3 15.9 16.8 18.3

23.6 23.9 23.3 17.6 16.8 16.1 21.8 21.9 21.1

25.6 26.3 26.1

15.5 18.0 15.9 24.8 26.2 25.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

30-59 Days 60-89 Days 90+ Days 30-59 Days 60-89 Days 90+ Days 30-59 Days 60-89 Days 90+ Days

Significant Moderate Slight Improvement

64.6 64.9 65.5 63.5 63.5

55.9 56.8 58.5 55.4 55.0

61.8

52.6

61.8 59.8 59.5

52.9

60.4 55.5

58.5 58.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0



7. In what ways does the program serve the parents of the program participants? Is there increased involvement by participants' parents in regular school activities? (Goal 4)

• In 2019-2011, the sub-grantees served 9,373 adult family members of 21st CCLC

students, compared to 8.757 in 2010. The median number of adults served per site increased from 10 in 2010 to 15 adults in 2011, an estimated 13% to 16% of the families.

• Over 90% of the parents are rather satisfied with the program, are supportive of the 21st

CCLC program, and show support for learning.

• Sub-grantees with programs funding in 2010 are still struggling with how to implement learning opportunities for the parent/guardians as required in 21st CCLC programs.

• Sub-grantees have been successful in keeping communication open with parents. At the

elementary level, newsletters (75% of the sub-grants), notes home (87%), in-person discussions (91%), and the website (35%) have been used. At the middle/junior high level, sub-grantees use newsletters (69%), phone calls (89%), in-person meetings (80%), notes home (82%), and the website (29%) to communicate. At the high school level, sub-grantees use newsletters (64%), notes home (77%), phone calls (91%), in person meetings (79%), and the website (60%).

8. Did the RFP award process result in programs being awarded to service the children

and community members with the greatest need? (Goal 5)

• Each sub-grantee obtained funding through a RFP process that provided preference criteria to high need students.

• Selection and recruitment policies at individual 21st CCLC sites vary, ranging from open

admissions to criteria based on income, tests scores, grades, and/or behavioral or learning challenges.

• Regular attendees were predominately students who qualified for free/reduced lunch

(86.5%). 9. Did the professional development activities provided through the State of Illinois to

21st CCLC program personnel adhere to No Child Left Behind Act definitions and the National Staff Development Council’s professional development standards? (Goal 6)

• ISBE personnel and Learning Point Associates provided a variety of professional

development and technical assistance to the sub-grantees.

• More sub-grantees utilized the Building Quality website (21st CCLC portal) than in 2010; however, this resource is still under-utilized.

• Overall, approximately 90% of the sub-grantees indicated being satisfied with the

professional development and technical assistance available to them.



10. What are the current efforts toward providing for sustainability of the current programs, especially of the programs in their final year of funding? (Goal 7)

• Sub-grantees reported over 95% of the schools, teachers, communities, and partners supported the 21st CCLC program.

• For sub-grants in their last year of implementation, few indicated that the essential components to result in student growth were sustainable; however, more were nearly sustainable (56% of elementary level, 25% of middle school, and 50% of high school programs).

Part III. Recommendations 2012 Before discussing the recommendations for 2012, the actions taken on implementing the 2011 recommendations are summarized. The following four major actions were taken by ISBE in 2011 as recommended in the 2009-2010 Annual Illinois 21st CCLC evaluation.

• ISBE made considerable strides in proactively identifying technical assistance and professional development needed by the sub-grantees. At the fall workshop, sub-grantees heard about best practices in student retention and family participation. During the year, webinars focused on these topics. All-day workshops were held to help sub-grantees improve their local evaluations. Sub-grantees rated their satisfaction with technical assistance and mandated meetings in 2010-2011 higher than in each of the previous four years. The percentage of sub-grantees seeking technical assistance increased; however, the technical assistance, Building Quality in Afterschool website, and webinars are underutilized.

The professional development was aimed at increasing student retention and parent/guardian involvement. From 2010 to 2011, the percentage of 21st CCLC participants increased from 46.35% to 50.29% and the number of parent/guardians increased from 8,709 to 9,373, a 6.63% increase. The evaluation workshops resulted in nearly all of the sub-grantees submitting local evaluations that met state evaluation standards.

• ISBE successfully implemented a new compliance monitoring system for the sub-

grantees. Additional staff was allocated to 21st CCLC in 2010-2010 to implement the compliance monitoring. The process involves three tiers of review based on a risk analysis. Protocols for each tier were established, piloted, and revised as needed. Sub-grantees were required to create approved action plans with corrective actions to address any non-compliance indicated in each tier of review.

The implementation of compliance monitoring by ISBE has increased the awareness of the sub-grantees of the mandated elements of 21st CCLC and raised levels of compliance. Perhaps the most effective component was the implementation of phone calls to sub-grantees by ISBE personnel. This increased the interaction between ISBE and the sub-grantees, built relationships, and allowed for ISBE to have a closer “hands-on” view of the challenges the sub-grantees faced, which in turn increased ISBE’s ability to be proactive in addressing the sub-grantees’ concerns.



• The goals established for the Illinois 21st CCLC program were revised in 2010-2011 to provide more direct measures of outcomes and establish clearer expectations of sub-grantees. A growth model to assess student academic performance was implemented. In addition, a focus on social-emotional growth was established and performance indicators and measures were articulated. The student growth model in the Illinois revised goals was implemented in the statewide evaluation and showed academic growth especially for low-income students in the middle school grades.

• The RFP for new sub-grants to be initiated in 2011-2012 was released. A new peer

review process as recommended by the U.S. Department of Education was implemented to review the proposals. The RFP resulted in the funding of a 2012 cohort of sub-grantees in a process aligned with federal recommendations.

Based on the progress made on the recommendations from 2010 and the findings of the evaluation for 2011, the following recommendations are offered for program year 2011-2012:

1) Continue the focus on student retention 2) Continue the focus on the parent/guardian component 3) Ensure new sub-grantees and continuing sub-grantees with corrective action plans

are provided and participate in technical assistance 4) Assist sub-grantees in implementing the revised Illinois Goals, objectives,

performance indicators, and measurements

ISBE has the opportunity to address these issues as the measures for the revised Illinois goals are implemented through the implementation of an integrated data collection plan that minimized the burden on the sub-grantees. In order to do this, ISBE should consider implementing statewide data collection components and processes.


ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING October 29–30, 2012

TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Robert Wolfe, Chief Financial Officer Agenda Topic: Budget Update Materials: ISBE FY 2014 Budget Process Summary State Funds Appropriation History (Exhibit A) FY 2013 Enacted Budget (Exhibit B) Staff Contact(s): Robert Wolfe, Chief Financial Officer Purpose of Agenda Item The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Board with information to assist in developing the FY 2014 budget. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan Many issues discussed below relate to the successful implementation of the Board’s Strategic Plan. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item It is expected that Board members will consider this memo in developing the FY 2014 budget. Background Information In the fall of each year, the State Board of Education begins discussions on a budget for the next fiscal year. As in past years, the Board is holding a series of public hearings throughout the state to allow constituents to advocate for items in the agency’s budget. Staff’s preliminary discussions are intended to assist the Board in developing their recommendations. The Board will finalize a budget recommendation at its January meeting, and that recommendation will be forwarded to the Governor and General Assembly for their consideration. During the spring, the Superintendent and staff participate in General Assembly appropriation committee hearings to advocate for the Board’s recommendation. Superintendent’s Recommendation This item is for information purposes only. Next Steps Staff will complete an analysis of each key element of the plan such as General State Aid, Mandated Categorical Reimbursements and Operations Budget. These analyses will be presented at the December meeting. The Board will prepare a FY 2014 recommendation at the January Board meeting.


ISBE FY 2014 Budget Process Summary

Board Strategic Funding Priorities In developing prior fiscal years’ budget recommendations, the Board prioritized spending on programs that:

• Met the Board’s strategic plan and supported its goals for academic achievement, highly prepared and effective teachers, and a safe and healthy learning environment,

• Leveraged General Revenue Funds needed to match federally funded programs and

demonstrate maintenance of effort,

• Provided the greatest flexibility for local decisions in directing resources, and

• Supported the largest number of children in need.

At the September retreat, considerations for funding formula revisions were presented based upon the following premises:

• Prepare districts for the likelihood of a long-term state deficit environment,

• Ensure students most in need are prioritized, and

• Ensure that funding follows students. Board Funding History Since FY 2009, General Funds appropriations have decreased by approximately $861 million. For FY 2013, the Board sought an increase of $265 million or 3.9% over the FY 2012 appropriation levels. The budget that was enacted reflected a General Funds appropriation of $6.541 billion, which reflected an overall reduction of $209.6 million from the FY 2012 appropriation levels as shown in Exhibit B. The most severe programmatic reductions are shown below.

• $161.3 million (3.6%) reduction in General State Aid (GSA) • $24.9 million (7.7%) reduction in Early Childhood • $12.0 million (45.6%) reduction in Illinois Free Lunch/Breakfast • $2.8 million (30.0%) reduction to Alternative learning/Regional safe Schools • $2.1 million (14.6%) reduction to Truant Alternative and Optional Education • $1.3 million (81.5%) reduction in Children’s Mental Health Partnership

FY 2014 Budget Public Hearings In preparation for the FY 2014 Budget, the board is soliciting public input in a series of five hearings throughout Illinois commencing on October 29 in Richton Park at Southland Charter School. The other locations and dates are as follows:


November 5 Champaign Champaign Public Library November 15 Grayslake College of Lake County November 16 Chicago James R Thompson Center November 19 Granite City Granite City High School A summary of the requests made at these hearings will be provided to the Board at the December Board Meeting General State Aid Staff is currently in the process of calculating impact data for potential revisions to GSA which will be provided to the Board in December:

• Eliminating Flat Grant Districts from GSA Formula Grant and Poverty Grant Eligibility • Possible changes to the Poverty Grant Calculations and District’s Eligibility • Allowing the Foundation Level to be set at the amount the appropriations actually

support • Imposing a Floor on the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law Equalized Assessed

Valuation Amounts The Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) will commence its public meetings on October 31, 2012. EFAB is required to submit a report to the General Assembly in January 2013 of its recommended Foundation Level for General State Aid. The last EFAB report issued in January 2011 recommended an $8,360 Foundation Level for FY12. The indexed Foundation Level for FY13 was $8,561 and the FY13 General State Aid appropriation had a shortfall of $4.3 Billion. Mandated Categorical Reimbursements (MCAT) Staff will be completing budget projections for FY 2014 MCAT levels at 100% proration for Board Review. Operations Budget Budget and Financial Management Division Staff are currently in the process of meeting with agency management staff to begin the process of identifying funding needs for FY 2014. For administrative funding, staff will be developing a FY 2014 request which will maintain adequate staffing levels and fund contractual services obligations necessary for ISBE to meet state and federal statutory requirements, as well as fund initiatives which are in alignment with the Board’s Strategic Plan. This process will continue with agency management and a recommendation will be presented at the December Board Meeting.


$000's FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13General State Aid 4,454,500$ 4,607,668$ 4,615,976$ 4,600,305$ 4,448,104$ 4,286,753$ Mandated Categoricals 1,677,253 1,799,805 1,944,078 1,845,847 1,781,628 1,755,948 Early Childhood Education 343,255 380,261 342,235 342,235 325,124 300,192 ADA Block Grant 74,841 74,841 18,710 - - - Reading Improvement Block Grant 76,140 76,140 68,526 - - - Bilingual Education 74,552 75,652 68,087 63,381 63,381 63,381 Transitional Assistance 5,000 19,210 - - - - District Consolidation Costs 7,850 7,850 3,700 3,700 1,800 2,805 Textbook Loans 42,827 42,826 - - - - Other Grants 303,632 293,083 194,331 139,879 108,195 108,066 Agency Operations 23,645 24,504 26,550 24,414 22,154 23,654 TOTAL STATE FUNDS 7,083,494$ 7,401,840$ 7,282,193$ 7,019,761$ 6,750,387$ 6,540,799$

Change Change Change Change Change Change Change$000's FY07-FY08 FY08-FY09 FY09-FY10 FY10-FY11 FY11-FY12 FY11-FY12 FY09-FY13General State Aid 288,170$ 153,168$ 8,308$ (15,671)$ (152,201)$ (161,352)$ (320,916)$ Mandated Categoricals 195,831 122,552 144,273 (98,231) (64,219) (25,680) (43,857)$ Early Childhood Education 25,000 37,007 (38,026) (0) (17,112) (24,931) (80,069)$ ADA Block Grant - - (56,131) (18,710) - - (74,841)$ Reading Improvement Block Grant - 0 (7,614) (68,526) - - (76,140)$ Bilingual Education 8,000 1,100 (7,565) (4,706) 0 - (12,271)$ Transitional Assistance (6,800) 14,210 (19,210) - - - (19,210)$ District Consolidation Costs - - (4,150) - (1,900) 1,005 (5,045)$ Textbook Loans 13,700 (1) (42,826) - - - (42,826)$ Other Grants 53,383 (10,549) (98,752) (54,452) (31,684) (129) (185,017)$ Agency Operations 871 859 2,046 (2,136) (2,260) 1,500 (850)$ TOTAL STATE FUNDS 578,155$ 318,346$ (119,647)$ (262,432)$ (269,374)$ (209,587)$ (861,041)$

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONState Funds Appropriation History - FY08 -FY13

,000s


1

FY 12 FY13 FY13 FY13 Percent PercentISBE Board Governor's Enacted Increase Increase Increase Increase

$000s Appropriation Recommend Budget P.A. 97-0728 (Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)GENERAL FUNDS

General State AidStatutory Foundation Level $6,119 $6,119 $6,119 $6,119

Pro-rated 95% Pro-rated 96% Pro-rated 92% Pro-rated 89%

GSA Formula Grant 2,361,036.8 2,451,008.5 2,344,896.9 2,261,270.7GSA Poverty Grant 1,489,562.7 1,737,617.0 1,662,390.2 1,581,304.5PTELL Adjustment 597,505.0 460,765.3 440,814.4 444,177.3

Subtotal, General State Aid 4,448,104.5 4,649,390.8 4,448,104.5 4,286,752.5 (362,638.3) -7.8% (161,352.0) -3.6%

Mandated CategoricalsSp Ed - Personnel Reimbursement 452,257.2 440,200.0 440,200.0 440,200.0 0.0 0.0% (12,057.2) -2.7%Sp Ed - Funding for Children Requiring Sp Ed Services 343,375.7 314,196.1 320,919.4 314,196.1 0.0 0.0% (29,179.6) -8.5%Sp Ed - Orphanage Tuition 101,700.0 111,000.0 111,000.0 111,000.0 0.0 0.0% 9,300.0 9.1%Sp Ed - Private Tuition 177,743.7 213,800.0 213,800.0 206,843.3 (6,956.7) -3.3% 29,099.6 16.4%Sp Ed - Summer School 10,750.0 10,100.0 10,100.0 10,100.0 0.0 0.0% (650.0) -6.0%Sp Ed - Transportation 432,525.6 440,500.0 440,500.0 440,500.0 0.0 0.0% 7,974.4 1.8%

Subtotal, Special Ed Categoricals 1,518,352.2 1,529,796.1 1,536,519.4 1,522,839.4 (6,956.7) -0.5% 4,487.2 0.3%Illinois Free Lunch/Breakfast 26,300.0 37,200.0 26,300.0 14,300.0 (22,900.0) -61.6% (12,000.0) -45.6%Orphanage Tuition 13,000.0 13,000.0 13,000.0 13,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Transportation - Regular/Vocational 223,976.1 205,808.9 205,808.9 205,808.9 0.0 0.0% (18,167.2) -8.1%

Subtotal, Mandated Categoricals 1,781,628.3 1,785,805.0 1,781,628.3 1,755,948.3 (29,856.7) -1.7% (25,680.0) -1.4%

Standards and AssessmentsAssessments 24,000.0 27,400.0 27,400.0 27,400.0 0.0 0.0% 3,400.0 14.2%Growth Model 0.0 2,400.0 0.0 0.0 (2,400.0) -100.0% 0.0 0.0%Response to Intervention 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.0) NA (0.0) NAAmerican Diploma Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.0) NA (0.0) NALearning Stds & Assessments/Stds Materials & Training 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Subtotal, Standards, Assessments and Accountability 26,000.0 31,800.0 29,400.0 29,400.0 (2,400.0) -7.5% 3,400.0 13.1%

Academic ImprovementEarly Childhood Education 325,123.5 345,000.0 345,123.5 300,192.4 (44,807.6) -13.0% (24,931.1) -7.7%Arts and Foreign Language 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 500.0 (500.0) -50.0% (500.0) -50.0%Bilingual Education 63,381.2 70,381.2 66,381.2 63,381.2 (7,000.0) -9.9% 0.0 0.0%


Education Reform Budget

to FY13 Board to FY 2012 Approp

FY2013 Enacted Operating Budget

Comparison of FY 2013 Enacted

Public Act 97-0728


2


$000s Appropriation Recommend Budget P.A. 97-0728 (Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

to FY13 Board to FY 2012 AppropComparison of FY 2013 Enacted

College and Career ReadinessAdvance Placement Classes 0.0 527.0 0.0 527.0 0.0 0.0% 527.0 NAAgricultural Education 1,800.0 1,800.0 1,800.0 1,800.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Career and Technical Education Programs 38,562.1 38,562.1 38,562.1 38,062.1 (500.0) -1.3% (500.0) -1.3%

Subtotal Career and College Readiness 40,362.1 40,889.1 40,362.1 40,389.1 (500.0) -1.2% 27.0 0.1%Subtotal, Academic Improvement 429,866.8 457,270.3 452,866.8 404,462.7 (52,807.6) -11.5% (25,404.1) -5.9%

School Reform and AccountabilityLowest Performing Schools 1,002.8 3,000.0 3,000.0 1,002.8 (1,997.2) -66.6% 0.0 0.0%Statewide System of Support 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NA Children's Mental Health Partnership 1,620.0 2,000.0 1,620.0 300.0 (1,700.0) -85.0% (1,320.0) -81.5%State and District Technology Support 3,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Digitized Educational Materials 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NADistrict Accountability System 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NA

Subtotal, School Reform and Accountability 5,622.8 8,000.0 7,620.0 4,302.8 (3,697.2) -46.2% (1,320.0) -23.5%

Regional Delivery SystemRegional Offices of Education - Bus Driver Training 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Regional Offices of Education - Salaries 0.0 9,800.0 0.0 0.0 (9,800.0) NA 0.0 NARegional Offices of Education - School Services 0.0 4,950.0 0.0 2,225.1 (2,725.0) -55.0% 2,225.1 NA

Subtotal, Regional Offices of Education 70.0 14,820.0 70.0 2,295.1 (12,525.0) -84.5% 2,225.1 3178.6%

Special EducationAutism 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Blind and Dyslexic 816.6 894.0 816.6 816.6 (77.4) -8.7% 0.0 0.0%Community and Residential Services Authority 592.3 627.0 592.3 592.3 (34.7) -5.5% 0.0 0.0%Materials Center for the Visually Impaired 1,421.1 1,421.1 1,421.1 1,421.1 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Philip J. Rock Center and School 3,577.8 3,577.8 3,577.8 3,577.8 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Subtotal, Special Education 6,507.8 6,619.9 6,507.8 6,507.8 (112.1) -1.7% 0.0 0.0%

Educator Quality and SupportNational Board Certification 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Teach for America 1,225.0 1,975.0 1,975.0 1,225.0 (750.0) -38.0% 0.0 0.0%Performance Evaluations 0.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 (200.0) NA 0.0 NAPrincipal Mentoring Program 0.0 900.0 0.0 0.0 (900.0) -100.0% 0.0 NATeacher and Administrator Mentoring Program 0.0 3,157.6 0.0 0.0 (3,157.6) -100.0% 0.0 NA

Subtotal, Educator Quality and Support 2,225.0 7,232.6 2,975.0 2,225.0 (5,007.6) -69.2% 0.0 0.0%

Other Statewide District Categorical AssistanceDistrict Consolidation Costs 1,800.0 4,600.0 1,800.0 2,805.0 (1,795.0) -39.0% 1,005.0 55.8%Financial Oversight /School Management Assistance 0.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 (150.0) -100.0% 0.0 NA

Subtotal, Other Statewide District Categorical Assistance 1,800.0 4,750.0 1,800.0 2,805.0 (1,945.0) -40.9% 1,005.0 55.8%


3




Student Health and Safety InitiativesAlternative Learning/Regional Safe Schools 9,341.9 9,341.9 9,341.9 6,539.3 (2,802.6) -30.0% (2,802.6) -30.0%Re-Enrolling Students - Alternative Schools Network 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NARe-Enrolling Students - IHOPE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NAHomeless Education 1,000.0 0.0 0.0 (1,000.0) NA 0.0 NATruant Alternative and Optional Education 14,059.0 14,059.0 14,059.0 12,000.0 (2,059.0) -14.6% (2,059.0) -14.6%

Subtotal, Health & Safety Initiatives before lump sums 23,400.9 24,400.9 23,400.9 18,539.3 (5,861.6) -24.0% (4,861.6) -20.8%Temporary Relocation Expense Fund Deposit--Lump Sum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NAEducator Investigations/Hearings--Lump Sum 184.0 375.0 184.0 184.0 (191.0) -50.9% 0.0 0.0%

Subtotal, Student Health and Safety Initiatives 23,584.9 24,775.9 23,584.9 18,723.3 (6,052.6) -24.4% (4,861.6) -20.6%

MiscellaneousAfter School Matters 2,500.0 0.0 2,500.0 2,500.0 2,500.0 NA 0.0 0.0%Tax Equivalent Grants 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 NA 1,000.0 NA

Subtotal, Miscellaneous 2,722.6 222.6 2,722.6 3,722.6 3,500.0 1572.3% 1,000.0 36.7%

Subtotal Grants without GSA/MCATS 498,399.9 555,491.3 527,547.1 474,444.3 -81,047.0 -14.6% -23,955.7 -4.8%

TOTAL - GRANTS 6,728,132.7 6,990,687.1 6,757,279.9 6,517,145.1 (473,542.0) -6.8% (210,987.7) -3.1%

ADMINISTRATION --GENERAL FUNDSPersonal Services 16,036.3 16,629.6 16,629.6 16,036.3 (593.3) -3.6% 0.0 0.0%Retirement Pick-Up 191.8 198.9 198.9 191.8 (7.1) -3.6% 0.0 0.0%Retirement 200.0 200.0 0.0 (200.0) NA 0.0 NASocial Security/Medicare 517.6 536.8 536.8 517.6 (19.2) -3.6% 0.0 0.0% Sub-Total Personal Services and Benefits 16,745.7 17,565.3 17,565.3 16,745.7 (819.6) -4.7% 0.0 0.0%Contractual 4,500.0 6,000.0 6,000.0 6,000.0 0.0 0.0% 1,500.0 33.3%Travel 166.3 300.0 300.0 166.3 (133.8) -44.6% 0.0 0.0%Commodities 71.3 72.0 72.0 71.3 (0.7) -1.0% 0.0 0.0%Printing 64.7 65.0 65.0 64.7 (0.3) -0.5% 0.0 0.0%Equipment 132.2 250.0 250.0 132.2 (117.8) -47.1% 0.0 0.0%Telecommunications 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Operation of Automotive Equipment 23.8 25.0 25.0 23.8 (1.2) -4.8% 0.0 0.0%

Subtotal, Operations 22,154.0 24,727.3 24,727.3 23,654.0 (1,073.4) -4.3% 1,500.0 6.8%Strategic Plan 100.0 200.0 200.0 0.0 (200.0) -100.0% (100.0) -100.0%

Subtotal, Lump Sums 100.0 200.0 200.0 0.0 (200.0) -100.0% (100.0) -100.0%

TOTAL - ADMINISTRATION AND LUMP SUMS 22,254.0 24,927.3 24,927.3 23,654.0 (1,273.3) -5.1% 1,400.0 6.3%

General Funds Total 6,750,386.7 7,015,614.4 6,782,207.2 6,540,799.0 (474,815.4) -6.8% (209,587.7) -3.1%Textbook Loan Program - Reappropriation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

General Funds Total With Reappropriation 6,750,386.7 7,015,614.4 6,782,207.2 6,540,799.0 (474,815.4) -6.8% (209,587.7) -3.1%


4




ADMINISTRATION--OTHER STATE FUNDSPersonal Services 164.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (164.9) NARetirement Pick-Up 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NARetirement 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (10.0) NASocial Security/Medicare 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (6.3) NAGroup Insurance 41.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (41.2) NA

Subtotal, Operations 222.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (222.4) NA

Ordinary & Contingent Expenses - Indirect Cost Recovery 7,015.2 7,015.2 7,015.2 7,015.2 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Ordinary & Contingent Expenses - Chicago Teacher Cert. Fees 2,208.9 2,208.9 2,208.9 2,208.9 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Ordinary & Contingent Expenses - Teacher Certificate Fees 3,700.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0% 1,300.0 35.1%Ordinary & Contingent Expenses - School Infrastructure Fund 600.0 600.0 600.0 600.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Subtotal, Lump Sums 13,524.1 14,824.1 14,824.1 14,824.1 0.0 0.0% 1,300.0 9.6%

TOTAL - ADMINISTRATION 13,746.5 14,824.1 14,824.1 14,824.1 0.0 0.0% 1,077.6 7.8%

GRANTS--OTHER STATE FUNDSAfter School Rescue Fund 0.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 0.0 0.0% 200.0 NACharter Schools Revolving Loan Fund 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Drivers Education Fund 18,172.2 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 0.0 0.0% (672.2) -3.7%Personal Property Replacement Tax Fund 13,031.5 0.0 16,975.0 12,025.0 12,025.0 NA (1,006.5) -7.7%School District Emergency Financial Assistance Fund 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%School Technology Revolving Loan Fund 5,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%State Board of Education Special Purpose Trust Fund 8,484.8 8,484.8 8,484.8 8,484.8 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Temporary Relocation Expenses Revolving Grant Fund 1,400.0 1,400.0 1,400.0 1,400.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Subtotal, Grants 47,108.5 33,604.8 50,579.8 45,629.8 12,025.0 35.8% (1,478.7) -3.1%

TOTAL - GRANTS 47,108.5 33,604.8 50,579.8 45,629.8 12,025.0 35.8% (1,478.7) -3.1%

TOTAL--OTHER STATE FUNDS - ISBE 60,855.0 48,428.9 65,403.9 60,453.9 12,025.0 24.8% (401.1) -0.7%OTHER STATE FUNDS - CHARTER SCHOOL COMMISSION

Charter School Commission Fund to Charter School Commission 300.0 500.0 500.0 300.0 (200.0) -40.0% 0.0 0.0%

FEDERAL FUNDSADMINISTRATIONOperations

Personal Services 16,755.7 17,375.7 17,375.7 17,375.7 0.0 0.0% 620.0 3.7%Retirement Pick-Up 105.5 109.4 109.4 109.4 0.0 0.0% 3.9 3.7%Retirement 6,825.0 7,507.5 7,507.5 7,507.5 0.0 0.0% 682.5 10.0%Social Security/Medicare 1,179.0 1,222.6 1,222.6 1,222.6 0.0 0.0% 43.6 3.7%Group Insurance 4,510.9 5,052.2 5,052.2 5,052.2 0.0 0.0% 541.3 12.0%Sub-Total Personal Services and Benefits 29,376.1 31,267.4 31,267.4 31,267.4 0.0 0.0% 1,891.3 6.4%Contractual 24,310.0 25,525.5 25,525.5 25,525.5 0.0 0.0% 1,215.5 5.0%Travel 2,030.0 2,030.0 2,030.0 2,030.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Commodities 410.0 410.0 410.0 410.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Printing 498.0 498.0 498.0 498.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Equipment 616.0 677.6 677.6 1,000.0 322.4 47.6% 384.0 62.3%Telecommunications 459.0 459.0 459.0 459.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Subtotal, Operations 57,699.1 60,867.5 60,867.5 61,189.9 322.4 0.5% 3,490.8 6.1%

TOTAL-- ADMINISTRATION 57,699.1 60,867.5 60,867.5 61,189.9 322.4 0.5% 3,490.8 6.1%


5




GRANTSCareer and Technical Education

Career and Technical Education - Basic 55,000.0 55,000.0 55,000.0 55,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Career and Technical Education - Tech Prep 5,000.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0% (4,900.0) -98.0%

Subtotal, Career and Technical Education 60,000.0 55,100.0 55,100.0 55,100.0 0.0 0.0% (4,900.0) -8.2%

Child Nutrition Child Nutrition Programs 725,000.0 725,000.0 725,000.0 725,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Child Nutrition Programs - ARRA 914.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (914.3) NA

Subtotal, Child Nutrition 725,914.3 725,000.0 725,000.0 725,000.0 0.0 0.0% (914.3) -0.1%

Individuals with Disabilities ActIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act 650,000.0 700,000.0 700,000.0 700,000.0 0.0 0.0% 50,000.0 7.7%Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - ARRA 354,535.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (354,535.9) NAIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act - Deaf and Blind 450.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 0.0 0.0% 50.0 11.1%Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - Model Outreach 400.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (400.0) NAIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act - Preschool 25,000.0 25,000.0 25,000.0 25,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - Preschool - ARRA 12,818.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (12,818.0) NAIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act - State Improvement 3,700.0 4,000.0 4,000.0 4,000.0 0.0 0.0% 300.0 8.1%Bellfaire JCB 0.0 0.0 0.0 500.0 500.0 NA 500.0 NA

Subtotal, Individuals with Disabilities Act 1,046,903.9 729,500.0 729,500.0 730,000.0 500.0 0.1% (316,903.9) -30.3%

NCLB (excluding Assessments)NCLB - Title I - Advanced Placement Program 3,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%NCLB - Title I 750,000.0 825,000.0 825,000.0 825,000.0 0.0 0.0% 75,000.0 10.0%NCLB - Title I - ARRA 381,125.2 150,000.0 150,000.0 150,000.0 0.0 0.0% (231,125.2) -60.6%NCLB - Title I - Reading First 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NANCLB - Title I - Striving Readers 50,000.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 0.0 0.0% (49,500.0) -99.0%NCLB - Title II - Enhancing Education Through Technology 20,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0% (15,000.0) -75.0%NCLB - Title II - Enhancing Education Through Technology - ARRA 18,566.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0% (18,466.2) -99.5%NCLB - Title II - Math/Science Partnerships 12,000.0 14,000.0 14,000.0 14,000.0 0.0 0.0% 2,000.0 16.7%NCLB - Title II - Teacher/Principal Training 157,000.0 157,000.0 157,000.0 157,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%NCLB - Title II - Transition to Teaching 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NANCLB - Title III - Language Acquisition 40,000.0 45,000.0 45,000.0 45,000.0 0.0 0.0% 5,000.0 12.5%NCLB - Title IV - 21st Century/Community Service Programs 60,500.0 65,000.0 65,000.0 65,000.0 0.0 0.0% 4,500.0 7.4%NCLB - Title IV - Safe and Drug Free Schools 15,000.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 0.0 0.0% (14,500.0) -96.7%NCLB - Title V - Charter Schools 9,000.0 9,000.0 9,000.0 9,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%NCLB - Title V - Innovative Programs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NANCLB - Title VI - Rural and Low Income Schools 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%NCLB - Title X - Homeless Education 5,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%NCLB - Title X - Homeless Education - ARRA 645.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (645.2) NA

Subtotal, NCLB (excluding Assessments) 1,523,836.6 1,281,100.0 1,281,100.0 1,281,100.0 0.0 0.0% (242,736.6) -15.9%


6




AssessmentsAssessments 23,780.3 23,780.3 23,780.3 23,780.3 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%ONPAR 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Subtotal, Assessments 25,780.3 25,780.3 25,780.3 25,780.3 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Other GrantsCongressional Special Projects 2,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0% 3,000.0 150.0%Learn and Serve America 2,500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 0.0 0.0% (2,000.0) -80.0%Refugee Children 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 NALongitudinal Data System 3,900.0 5,200.0 5,200.0 5,200.0 0.0 0.0% 1,300.0 33.3%Longitudinal Data System 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (5,000.0) NALongitudinal Data System - ARRA 7,300.0 10,000.0 10,000.0 10,000.0 0.0 0.0% 2,700.0 37.0%Early Learning Challenge 70,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA (70,000.0) NARace to the Top 50,000.0 42,800.0 42,800.0 42,800.0 0.0 0.0% (7,200.0) -14.4%

Subtotal, Other Grants 140,700.0 63,500.0 63,500.0 63,500.0 0.0 0.0% (77,200.0) -54.9%

TOTAL - GRANTS 3,523,135.1 2,879,980.3 2,879,980.3 2,880,480.3 500.0 0.0% (642,654.8) -18.2%

TOTAL - FEDERAL FUNDS 3,580,834.2 2,940,847.8 2,940,847.8 2,941,670.2 822.4 0.0% (639,164.0) -17.8%

GRAND TOTAL 10,392,075.8 10,004,891.1 9,788,458.9 9,542,923.1 (461,968.0) -4.6% (849,152.7) -8.2%

GRAND TOTAL w/ Reappropriations 10,392,075.8 10,004,891.1 9,788,458.9 9,542,923.1 (461,968.0) -4.6% (849,152.7) -8.2%



TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Matt Vanover, Director of Public Information/Deputy Superintendent Agenda Topic: Effective Teacher Training: Dr. Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Dean, School of

Education, University of Michigan Materials: None Staff Contact(s): Amanda Elliott, Board Services Coordinator Purpose of Agenda Item Deborah Loewenberg Ball is the William H. Payne Collegiate Professor in education at the University of Michigan, and an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor. She currently serves as Dean of the School of Education and as director of a new organization called TeachingWorks. She taught elementary school for more than 15 years, and continues to teach mathematics to elementary students every summer. Ball’s research focuses on the practice of mathematics instruction, and on the improvement of teacher training and development. She is an expert on teacher education, with a particular interest in how professional training and experience combine to equip beginning teachers with the skills and knowledge needed for responsible practice. Ball has served on several national and international commissions and panels focused on policy initiatives and the improvement of education, including the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (appointed by President George W. Bush) and the National Board for Education Sciences (appointed by President Barack Obama). Her presentation to the Board will explain how effective teacher training is based on:

• High-leverage teaching practice: Curriculum focused on the highest leverage instructional practices and the specialized knowledge of the academic domain that teachers are expected to teach.

• Close practice and feedback in clinical settings so that teachers can be deliberately taught and explicitly coached with the skills to reach a range of learners.

• Rigorous exit requirements: Highly credible and predictive professional assessments of knowledge and skill so that no one enters the classroom without demonstrated capacity for effective performance for a beginner teacher.

Dr. Ball’s presentation is relevant in Illinois given our state’s reform agenda. Major reforms have been enacted recently for teacher and leader evaluation and changes were made to the Illinois School Code revising the Illinois Teaching Standards, as well as the adoption of the Common Core State Standards in mathematics and English language arts. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan The presentation will support the following Board goals.



GOAL 2: Every student will be supported by highly prepared and effective teachers and school leaders. GOAL 3: Every school will offer a safe and healthy learning environment for all students.

Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item None. This presentation is for informational purposes only. Superintendent’s Recommendation None. This presentation is for informational purposes only. Next Steps None. This presentation is for informational purposes only.



TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Susan C. Morrison, Deputy Superintendent/Chief Education Officer Agenda Topic: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Materials: 2012 AYP Analysis Summary of School and Improvement Status Staff Contact(s): Mary O’Brian, Ed.D., Acting Director of Assessment Shuwan Chiu, Ph.D., Statistician/Psychometrician for Assessment Purpose of Agenda Item To inform the Board of the number of schools and districts not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in 2012. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan Goal 1: Every student will demonstrate academic achievement and be prepared for success after high school. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will have an understanding of how AYP is calculated and the impact on schools and districts. Background Information The Illinois State Board of Education has been calculating AYP in compliance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) since 2003. Because Illinois has not yet received approval to fully implement an ESEA waiver from the USDE, we must still calculate AYP in full compliance with the 2003 NCLB regulations. The three conditions required for making AYP are:

1. At least 95% of students are tested in reading and mathematics for every student group. If the current year participation rate is less than 95%, this condition may be met if the average of the current and preceding year rates is at least 95% or if the average of the current and two preceding years is at least 95%.

2. At least 85% of students meet or exceed standards in reading and mathematics for every group.

For any group with less than 85% meeting/exceeding standards, a 95% confidence interval is applied. Subgroups may meet this condition through Safe Harbor provisions. Safe Harbor only applies to subgroups of 45 or more. In order for Safe Harbor to apply, a subgroup must decrease by 10% the percentage of scores that did not meet standards from the previous year plus meet the other indicators (attendance rate for non-high schools and graduation rate for high schools) for the subgroup. For subgroups that do not meet their Safe Harbor Targets, a 75% confidence interval is applied. Safe Harbor allows schools an alternate method to meet subgroup minimum achievement targets.


3. Schools must have at least a 91% attendance rate for non-high schools and at least an 82% graduation rate for high schools.

Illinois State Board of Education Seeks Waiver Regarding AYP Targets The Illinois State Board of Education requested and received a waiver of section 1111(b)(2)(H) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, to permit ISBE to use the same AYP targets as in the 2010-11 school year (85 percent meets/exceeds) to make AYP determinations for the 2011-12 school year (instead of 92.5 percent). Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Analysis: The percent of schools making AYP declined slightly from 32.2% in 2011 to 32.0% in 2012. The percent of districts making AYP declined from 19.8% in 2011 to 17.6% in 2012. The percent of elementary districts that made AYP decreased from 37.5% in 2011 to 32.8% in 2012. The percent of high school districts that made AYP decreased from 1% in 2011 to 0% in 2012. The percent of unit school districts that made AYP decreased slightly from 7.5% in 2011 to 7.2% in 2012. Policy Implications: As we approach 2014 and the NCLB requirement of 100% of all students meeting individually adopted state standards, the re-authorization of the ESEA including an accountability system based on more than a status model, becomes critically important. We are proactively working together to advance education priorities for Illinois students towards a more equitable state accountability system. Education leaders in Illinois understand that a culture of high expectations for all students is fundamental to creating and supporting environments that serve the best interests of students. We continue to anticipate our ESEA waiver approval which will allow Illinois to implement a holistic and comprehensive differentiated recognition, accountability and support system that will help ensure that each and every Illinois student is prepared for college and career success. Budget Implications: Additional resources may be needed in the future to assist those schools struggling with school improvement. Legislative Action: N/A Communication: ISBE final AYP Status Reports were released to elementary schools (K-8) on August 1st, 2012 and high schools received final AYP Status Reports on September 10th, 2012. The 2012 school and district report cards were released to district superintendents on September 27th, 2012. The state Board of Education will not release school and district report cards to the public until October 31st, 2012. Pros and Cons of Various Actions This is an information item, no action is needed. Superintendent’s Recommendation This is an information item, no recommendation is needed.


2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12AYP State Performance Target 40.0 40.0 47.5 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 85.0# Not Making AYP 1235 1084 992 679 895 1200 1553 1999 2548 2545# Making AYP 2584 2717 2775 3092 2897 2603 2253 1808 1259 1241ReasonParticipation Only 102 13 4 19 6 0 2 0 0 0Participation and Performance Only 507 94 47 29 13 11 8 17 13 15Performance Only 571 920 903 579 779 1088 1433 1845 2234 2280Other Indicator Only 6 3 6 3 3 5 3 0 3 1Participation and Other Indicator Only 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Performance and Other Indicator Only 9 22 22 35 73 79 75 112 266 208Participation, Performance, and Other Indicator 36 32 10 14 21 17 32 25 31 41Test Irregularity 1 0 0Total 1235 1084 992 679 895 1200 1553 1999 2548 2545

DetailWhite Only 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1Black Only 26 24 14 15 20 11 10 5 10 12Hispanic Only 15 18 5 5 6 14 6 12 11 15Asian Only 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0Native American Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Multiracial Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LEP Only 27 27 14 2 8 69 25 12 5 4IEP Only 102 142 74 334 297 201 254 218 141 123Both LEP and IEP ONLY 7 10 4 7 14 44 23 9 5 7Economically Disadvantaged Only 62 57 25 18 17 36 59 98 97 123

Addition# of Elementary Schools/Districts Not Making AYP 942 814 679 458 568 772 1025 1390 1892 1885# of High Schools/Districts Not Making AYP 293 270 313 221 327 428 528 609 656 660# of Unit Districts Not Making AYP

# of Elementary Schools/Districts Making AYP 2230 2342 2446 2672 2575 2378 2127 1752 1249 1230# of High Schools/Districts Making AYP 354 375 329 420 322 225 126 56 10 11# of Unit Districts Making AYP

Number of Schools/Districts Making AYP this year did not last year 365 330 494 181 217 208 211 152 332Number of Schools/Districts Making AYP last year did not this year 216 248 188 387 510 556 646 690 340All Schools Made AYP but District Did Not

2012 AYP Analysis

School


2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

2012 AYP Analysis

School

Schools/Districts Made AYP at the State Targets at All Groups 2503 2151 1863 1447 1023 612 631

Other Than State Target, Schools/Districts Made AYP Due to….

95% Confidence Intervals 242 480 598 637 730 705 599 568

Safe Harbor 14 31 19 67 169 182 231 277 238 217Without 75% Confidence Interval 14 31 19 51 93 113 153 183 163 137With 75% Confidence Interval 29 97 85 125 166 123 125

Participation Rate <95% but Made AYP

Schools/Districts made AYP with less than 95% participation rate because of averaging the last 3-year participation rate 16 9 38 1 2 2 2 7 3

2% Flexibility on IEP 10 95 73 45 56 NA NA NAMade AYP Overall 8 65 58 31 38 NA NA NA

Made AYP in Reading 7 66 52 19 23 NA NA NA

Made AYP in Math 3 40 23 27 37 NA NA NANote: Each school or district could make AYP due to more than one reason.


2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

2012 AYP Analysis

School

Federal Improvement Status 562 660 625 573 511 558 721 918 1240 1528School:Choice 252 201 128 81 83 99 209 236 366 360Choice SES 287 197 115 85 49 64 92 184 216 323Corrective Action 23 240 151 93 46 37 48 86 177 203Restructuring 22 211 176 66 46 36 45 83 178Restructuring Implementation 20 138 267 312 336 367 398 464District:District Improvement Year 1 Year 2Corrective Action Year 1 Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6School in Status last year, Make AYP this year 147 275 167 85 55 36 18 53Removed From Federal Status by Making AYP 2 con. Yrs 31 73 111 22 25 6 4 1Make AYP This Year but Still in the Status 116 202 56 65 30 30 14 52State Improvement Status 668 939 951 851 708 815 1072 1404 1886 2287Academic Early Warning 305 399 435 273 158 231 482 685 891 982Year 1 205 99 79 170 334 391 533 512Year 2 230 174 79 61 148 294 358 470Academic Watch Status 363 540 516 578 550 584 590 719 995 1305Year 1 41 106 85 71 49 140 282 331Year 2 196 83 96 73 63 48 140 278Year 3 235 218 47 89 67 60 47 140Year 4 44 134 170 52 78 65 60 42Year 5 37 120 157 50 78 64 57Year 6 32 110 146 48 78 63Year 7 32 108 144 47 74Year 8 29 108 142 46Year 9 28 107 139Year 10 28 107Year 11 28Changes of the Status over the Years 993 977 892 850 1111 1412 1896 2291Removed 42 126 184 35 39 8 10 4New 70 42 59 144 312 349 505 433


2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

2012 AYP Analysis

School

Advanced 628 455 536 554 700 993 1342 1741Stayed the Same 253 354 113 117 60 62 39 113 Make AYP 179 336 84 102 53 55 35 99 Not Make AYP 73 18 29 15 7 7 4 4


2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

2012 AYP Analysis

School

Removed from Improvement Status, what was the Improvement Status last year 42 126 184 35 39 8 10 4Federal Improvement Status 34 73 111 22 25 6 5 1School:Choice 20 50 23 9 7 2 4 1Choice SES 12 11 34 2 3 3 1 0Corrective Action 2 12 21 4 2 0 0 0Restructuring 32 3 2 0 0 0Restructuring Implementation 1 4 11 1 0 0District:District Improvement Year 1District Improvement Year 2Corrective Action Year 1Corrective Action Year 2

State Improvement Status 42 126 184 35 39 8 10 4Academic Early Warning Year 1 0 96 33 10 10 4 8 3Academic Early Warning Year 2 22 3 71 9 3 2 2 1Academic Watch Year 1 1 18 3 5 7 0 0 0Academic Watch Year 2 18 9 35 3 4 1 0 0Academic Watch Year 3 1 41 3 5 0 0 0Academic Watch Year 4 1 4 6 0 0 0Academic Watch Year 5 1 4 1 0 0


AYP State Performance Target# Not Making AYP# Making AYPReasonParticipation OnlyParticipation and Performance OnlyPerformance OnlyOther Indicator OnlyParticipation and Other Indicator OnlyPerformance and Other Indicator OnlyParticipation, Performance, and Other IndicatorTest IrregularityTotal

DetailWhite OnlyBlack OnlyHispanic OnlyAsian OnlyNative American OnlyMultiracial OnlyLEP OnlyIEP OnlyBoth LEP and IEP ONLYEconomically Disadvantaged Only

Addition# of Elementary Schools/Districts Not Making AYP# of High Schools/Districts Not Making AYP# of Unit Districts Not Making AYP

# of Elementary Schools/Districts Making AYP# of High Schools/Districts Making AYP# of Unit Districts Making AYP

Number of Schools/Districts Making AYP this year did not last year

Number of Schools/Districts Making AYP last year did not this yearAll Schools Made AYP but District Did Not

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-1240.0 40.0 47.5 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 85.0448 335 237 200 245 340 429 559 695 713443 551 642 672 626 528 440 309 172 152

99 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0182 16 2 9 3 1 2 3 1 6158 311 227 179 236 326 403 524 553 565

4 1 2 1 0 2 3 1 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 6 4 8 6 11 21 31 137 1353 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6

448 335 237 200 245 340 429 559 695 713

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 2 3 0 2 3 0 3 1 33 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 9 2 0 0 18 4 4 2 2

132 199 126 133 149 152 144 134 60 5915 23 5 1 2 23 17 13 6 167 5 3 7 6 3 16 31 20 37

165 115 68 53 57 99 132 186 237 25454 52 52 45 63 78 89 99 99 99

229 168 117 102 125 163 208 274 359 360

218 266 311 324 319 279 247 193 142 12447 49 49 55 37 22 11 1 1 0

178 236 282 293 270 227 182 115 29 28

163 150 124 77 67 71 56 42 51

51 51 89 121 162 160 185 179 70176 112 57 55 59 53 35 32 15 10

District


Schools/Districts Made AYP at the State Targets at All Groups

Other Than State Target, Schools/Districts Made AYP Due to….

95% Confidence Intervals

Safe Harbor Without 75% Confidence IntervalWith 75% Confidence Interval

Participation Rate <95% but Made AYP

Schools/Districts made AYP with less than 95% participation rate because of averaging the last 3-year participation rate

2% Flexibility on IEPMade AYP Overall

Made AYP in Reading

Made AYP in MathNote: Each school or district could make AYP due to more than one reason.

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

District

428 339 286 208 116 57 58

134 140 175 179 176 172 108 88

9 26 33 68 110 101 116 100 55 419 26 33 29 60 59 72 69 39 32

40 55 53 64 59 31 19

5 4 11 0 1 1 0 4 0

59 80 87 61 84 NA NA NA36 67 57 32 50 NA NA NA

27 67 51 24 28 NA NA NA

38 15 36 37 64 NA NA NA


Federal Improvement StatusSchool:ChoiceChoice SESCorrective ActionRestructuringRestructuring ImplementationDistrict:District Improvement Year 1 Year 2Corrective Action Year 1 Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6School in Status last year, Make AYP this yearRemoved From Federal Status by Making AYP 2 con. YrsMake AYP This Year but Still in the StatusState Improvement StatusAcademic Early WarningYear 1Year 2Academic Watch StatusYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6Year 7Year 8Year 9Year 10Year 11Changes of the Status over the YearsRemovedNew

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

District

242 240 175 150 158 184 221 302 433

242 240 175 112 108 116 130 166 247242 240 134 95 85 90 82 112 148

41 17 23 26 48 54 9938 50 68 91 136 18638 16 20 23 45 50

34 15 20 23 4633 15 20 22

33 15 2033 15

33140 56 28 9 10 2 2

68 32 7 3 1 0 072 24 21 6 9 2 2

279 279 202 171 176 205 244 325 458279 279 202 125 114 127 142 174 252279 279 153 104 92 98 89 114 157

49 21 22 29 53 60 9546 62 78 102 151 20646 19 19 24 49 56

43 17 19 24 4842 17 19 25

42 17 1842 17

42

279 284 207 187 208 245 325 45882 36 11 3 1 0 0

8 5 16 32 40 81 135


AdvancedStayed the Same Make AYP

Not Make AYP

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

District

49 64 76 98 150 207 296279 145 102 84 75 54 37 27

82 28 23 9 9 2 4

63 74 61 66 45 35 23


Removed from Improvement Status, what was the Improvement Status last yearFederal Improvement StatusSchool:ChoiceChoice SESCorrective ActionRestructuringRestructuring ImplementationDistrict:District Improvement Year 1District Improvement Year 2Corrective Action Year 1Corrective Action Year 2

State Improvement StatusAcademic Early Warning Year 1Academic Early Warning Year 2Academic Watch Year 1Academic Watch Year 2Academic Watch Year 3Academic Watch Year 4Academic Watch Year 5

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

District

82 36 11 3 1 0 068 32 7 3 1

68 32 7 2 11

82 36 11 3 182 36 11 2 1

1


School Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Federal Improvement Status 562 14.3 660 16.9 625 16.1 573 14.7 511 13.1 558 14.3 721 18.4 918 23.5 1240 31.8 1528 39.5

Choice 252 6.4 201 5.1 128 3.3 81 2.1 83 2.1 99 2.5 209 5.3 236 6.0 366 9.4 360 9.3

SES\Choice 287 7.3 197 5.0 115 3.0 85 2.2 49 1.3 64 1.6 92 2.4 184 4.7 216 5.5 323 8.3

Corrective Action\SES\Choice 23 0.6 240 6.1 151 3.9 93 2.4 46 1.2 37 1.0 48 1.2 86 2.2 177 4.5 203 5.2

Restructuring Planning\SES\Choice 22 0.6 211 5.4 176 4.5 66 1.7 46 1.2 36 0.9 45 1.2 83 2.1 178 4.6

Restructuring Implementation\SES\Choice 20 0.5 138 3.5 267 6.9 312 8.0 336 8.6 367 9.4 398 10.2 464 12.0

State Improvement Status 668 17.0 939 24.0 951 24.5 851 21.9 708 18.2 815 20.9 1072 27.4 1404 35.9 1886 48.3 2287 59.0

Academic Early Warning 305 7.8 399 10.2 435 11.2 273 7.0 158 4.1 231 5.9 482 12.3 685 17.5 891 22.8 982 25.4

Academic Watch Status 363 9.3 540 13.8 516 13.3 578 14.9 550 14.1 584 15.0 590 15.1 719 18.4 995 25.5 1305 33.7

District

Federal Improvement Status 242 27.3 240 27.3 175 20.0 150 17.2 158 18.2 184 21.2 221 25.5 302 34.8 433 50.0

District Improvement 242 27.3 240 27.3 175 20.0 112 12.9 108 12.4 116 13.3 130 15.0 166 19.1 247 28.5

Corrective Action 38 4.4 50 5.8 68 7.8 91 10.5 136 15.7 186 21.5

State Improvement Status 279 31.5 279 31.7 202 23.1 171 19.6 176 20.3 205 23.6 244 28.1 325 37.4 458 52.9

Academic Early Warning 279 31.5 279 31.7 202 23.1 125 14.4 114 13.1 127 14.6 142 16.4 174 20.0 252 29.1

Academic Watch Status 46 5.3 62 7.1 78 9.0 102 11.8 151 17.4 206 23.8

Total Number of Schools 3919 3907 3884 3890 3888 3894 3910 3912 3904 3873

Total Number of Districts 891 886 879 873 871 868 869 868 868 866

2011-122010-11

Summary of the Schools/Districts Improvement Status

2009-102008-092007-082005-06 2006-072002-03 2003-04 2004-05



TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Susan C. Morrison, Deputy Superintendent/Chief Education Officer Agenda Topic: Report Card Information Materials: A Profile of Illinois Public Schools: Selections from the School Report

Card Files School Report Card: Fifteen-Year Statewide Trend Data (1998–2012) Staff Contact(s): Mary O’Brian, Ed.D., Acting Director of Assessment Peter Godard, Chief Performance Officer Shuwan Chiu, Ph.D., Statistician/Psychometrician for Assessment Purpose of Agenda Item To provide the Board with a summary of findings from the 2012 report card file, as well as statewide trend data from 1998 through 2012. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan The agenda item has linkage to Goal 1: Every student will demonstrate academic achievement and be prepared for success after high school. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will have an understanding of the condition of education in Illinois as indicated by school, student, and teacher demographics and the academic performance of students. Background Information School report cards were first produced in 1986, as mandated by state law. The information included in report cards has changed over time, and the amount of information provided has grown substantially. With the passage of No Child Left Behind, states were required to provide information on student achievement—including the most recent two-year trend data for each subject and grade—and the percentage of students tested, as well as comparisons between actual data and the state’s minimum targets. States were also required to indicate whether schools, districts, and the state made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and show their status with regard to school improvement. Some key findings from the report card files for 1998 through 2012 are as follows:

• The total number of school districts in Illinois continued to steadily decline. In 2003, there were 891 districts compared to 866 in 2012 (378 elementary districts, 100 high school districts, and 388 unit districts).

• Beginning in 2011, student enrollment data are reported based on home school; the total

student enrollment decreased from 2,074,806 in 2011 to 2,066,692 in 2012.

Plenary Packet - Page 155-1

• In 2012, there was an increase in the percentage of minority students (non-White) and an increase in the percentage of students from low-income families.

• Since 2003, elementary student performance has generally improved. In 2012, the percentage of students whose scores on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) that met or exceeded standards was 82.1, a slight increase from 2011.

• The percent of students whose scores on the PSAE that met or exceeded standards

increased from 50.5 in 2011 to 51.3 in 2012.

• Gaps persist in the academic performance of various groups of students. Students with at-risk characteristics—including those who are limited English proficient, migrant, from a low-income family, or who have an IEP—generally had lower scores.

• Since 1998, the percentage of minority teachers has remained generally unchanged at

about 15 percent of the teaching force until 2010; in 2012, 16.7 percent of Illinois teachers are minority. Female teachers are the majority with only 23.1 percent of teachers being male (about the same as in 2003).

• Education system revenues from the state continue to decline as revenues from federal

sources increased.

In 2013, report cards will be substantially revised pursuant to legislation passed in January 2012 (105 ILCS 5/10-17a). The new report cards will feature data on student progress, learning conditions, and curriculum offerings in addition to the data on school characteristics and student outcomes on the existing report cards. The new report cards have been designed with extensive stakeholder collaboration, and stakeholders continue to be involved in making the detailed decisions necessary to finalize the report card redesign. Using Race to the Top funds, ISBE staff are working to develop an electronic version of the report card. The on-line report card (building off the Illinois Interactive Report Card) will allow users to access additional views of report card metrics as well as thoughtful definitions and contextual information on each metric. ISBE staff are also working with stakeholders to develop a user guide for the report card and a process for data-based community engagement using the report card.

Analysis and Implications for Policy, Budget, Legislative Action and Communications Policy Implications: These data continue to be a focus for educational leaders. Analysis of the information provided in the School Report Card is used by districts and schools to drive continuous improvement processes. Adjustment of ISAT performance levels will impact the data moving forward for Illinois schools and the trends seen in the data will be affected by the change in expectations. Student demographics will continue to have implications for the types of services and programs provided by districts. In addition, the work on implementation of the New Illinois Learning Standards Incorporating the Common Core is critically important. The transition to the new Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) will continue and will affect the district and school data. Budget Implications: Continued reduction of state funding will become an even greater concern for districts in trying to meet the needs of all students.


Legislative Action: None at this time. Communication: Report cards were posted on September 27 to a secure site for district access. The media was provided with an embargoed report card data file on October 5, and that file is embargoed from release until October 31. Pros and Cons of Various Actions No action is needed since this is an informational item. Superintendent’s Recommendation No recommendation is needed since this is an informational item.


• AP : 2 English courses, 2 mathematics courses, 4 govt/

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

A High School 101 S Main St. | City IL 00000 | xxx-xxx-xxx

http://www.anywhere.k12.il.us/schools/AHS/

Two or more races4.2%

White63.1%

American Indian or Alaska Native

CURRICULUM/RESOURCE INFORMATION

Advanced (AP, IB) classes

School characteristics Student demographics

2010-2011 Principal 2010-2011 Superintendent Grades served

Enrollment 1,000

Average class size 19.7

Average years teaching experience 10

Per pupil spending:• District average• State average (for district type)

$20,000$17,000

Student transfers in or out 13%

Percentage of district revenue from:• Local taxes and fees• State funds• Federal funds

47%30%23%

Racial/ethnic background

(To be standardized and populated by

Example content provided below.)

• 14 interscholastic sports, 4 service clubs, 2 theatrical shows,

12 academically related clubs

• Examples of student clubs: flag corps, Math Club,

newspaper, ‘Do Something’ community service, Technology

Club, Spirit Club, French, Latin, German, Spanish, Anime,

National Honor Society, Chess Club, Be a Senator, yearbook

• AP : 2 English courses, 2 mathematics courses, 4 govt/

history courses, 3 science courses, 6 music arts courses

Students enrolled in at least 1 advanced class: 50%

Free breakfast program, “Best Buddies” tutoring, “Science

Stars”

FROM THE PRINCIPAL

Extracurricular activities

Before/after school programs

Dual credit/ enrollment classes

Calculus, English Literature

Gifted and talented programs, Autism specialists, work-study

programs

Special programming

Modern American Poetry and 6 other English electives,

Computer Programming, Film Study, 4 fine arts classes

Elective classes

(To be provided by school principal. Example content provided below.)

Spanish, French, German


Native Hawaiian orOther Pacific Islander0.2%

Hispanic/Latino2.8%

Black or African American25.6%

Asian3.9%

American Indian or Alaska Native0.2%

Foreign language classes

Student demographics

John Doe2011 Superintendent Dr. Jane Doe

9-12

Limited Englishproficiency

Low-income

Students eligible to receive special education

8%

46%

13%

Racial/ethnic background Additional demographic information

(To be standardized and populated by ISBE.

Example content provided below.)

6 guidance administrators; 1 speech teacher; 1 reading

specialist; 1 work coordinator; 11 special needs personnel

ISBE Honor Roll, Mideast Conference Champions in girls

volleyball, Science Olympiad Team 1st Place in Region,

Golden Apple Award Winner – Ms. Jones


• Average number of days of PE per week per student: 2

• Building compliance with Health, Life and Safety codes: Yes

• Additional programs: "Character Counts" character

education program, "Eat Smart/Be Smart” lunch program

Ninth National Bank – Career Fair sponsors; Rotary Club –

funded new playground

Health & wellness focus

Awards received

School personnel resources

Community partnerships

Business Education , Family & Consumer Science , Graphic

Communications: Photography, Health Science Academy

Approved programs of study




School Report Card, 2010

School performance

Freshmen on track

Freshmen who have earned enough class credit to be promoted

to sophomore year without failing more than one core class

Students graduating within 4 years

Out of students entering this school freshman yearGraduation

Graduates who enrolled in additional schooling

within 2 semesters of high school graduation

Includes colleges, community colleges, trade/vocational schoolsSuccess

Students academically ready for college & career

Measured by students scoring 20 or better on the ACT Readiness

On track

Performance

All students exceeding IL state standards on exams

PROGRESS: ARE STUDENTS MAKING SUFFICIENT PROGRESS?

OUTCOMES: WHAT ARE STUDENTS ACHIEVING?

Reading Math

R

M

Graduates completing freshman year of college

without remediation

A High School 101 S Main St. | City IL 00000 | xxx-xxx-xxx

http://www.anywhere.k12.il.us/schools/AHS/

Students certified career ready

All students meeting IL state standards on exams

Students with fewer than 10 absences in school year

Teachers returning to this school from last year

3-year average

Number of different principals at this school in

last 6 years

Family & community engagement in student/ teacher

survey From climate survey to be administered across all schools

Performance

Presence & engagement

Students achieving expected growth

Will measure how much students progress in learning each yearGrowth

Learning climate in student/ teacher survey

From climate survey to be administered across all schools

Professional climate in teacher survey


Teachers rated proficient or excellent

Based on teacher performance evaluationsTeachers

Teachers with fewer than 10 absences in school year

ENVIRONMENT: IS THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT SUPPORTING STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Reading Math

R

M

Professionalclimate

Learning climate


School Report Card, 2010-2011

School performance

School performance2008-2012

Schools with similar studentsPerformance range

of schools like yours

Illinois average

Comparison

90%

60%

85%

80%

25%

5%

80% to 93%

55% to 65%

80% to 90%

75% to 85%

10% to 17%

0% to 5%

85%

65%

75%

70%

15%

10%

6050554540

60 80 85 60 85

8560858060

9065908565

8075706765

5

25

510510513

515

10 11 120908

M

R

M

R

M

To be included when data are available


77%

40%

45%

86%

2

72% to 82%

35% to 42%

42% to 55%

82% to 92%

1 to 3

55% to 65%63%

80%

80%

2.5

70%

7775725340

6362603050

40403045404040454543

40%

48%

TEACHERS?

R

M

R

MM

80%

75% to 85% 70% 80

80% 75% to 85% 70% 80

80

80%

80%

80%

75% to 85%

75% to 85%

75% to 85%

70%

70%

70%

80

80

86



A Middle School 101 S Main St. | City IL 00000 | xxx-xxx-xxx

http://www.anywhere.k12.il.us/schools/AMS/






White63.1%


Enrollment 1,000




$20,000$17,000



47%30%23%

CURRICULUM/RESOURCE INFORMATION (To be standardized and populated by

Choir, band, art, stage, flag corps, Math Club, newspaper, ‘Do

Something’ community service, Environment Club,

Technology Club, Spirit Club, language clubs (French, Latin,

German, Spanish), Anime, National Honor Society,

cheerleading, Prevention Club, Chess Club, Be a Senator,

yearbook, Film Club, dance team


Family and Consumer Sciences; Business; 4 art classes,

Webmaster

Elective classes

6 guidance administrators; 1 speech teacher; 1 reading specialist; 1 work coordinator; 11 special needs personnel


FROM THE PRINCIPAL (To be provided by school principal. Example content provided below.)



Gifted and talented programs, Autism specialists

Special programming




Public (6-8)


Low-income


8%

46%

13%



Hispanic/Latino2.8%


Asian3.9%


(To be standardized and populated by ISBE. Example content provided below.)



Awards received





Volleyball, Science Olympiad Team 1st Place in Region,


• Free breakfast program, “Best Buddies” tutoring, “Science

Stars”










School

performance

6th graders meeting IL state standards on exams

Most recent Freshmen on track Students who have earned sufficient credit to be promoted without

failing more than one core class

Success

8th graders meeting IL state standards on examsReadiness

On track



Reading Math

R

M

6th graders exceeding IL state standards on exams

Reading Math

R

M

All students exceeding IL state standards on exams R

M


8th graders passing Algebra I

Reading Math

R

M

Reading Math

R

M

A Middle School 101 S Main St. | City IL 00000 | xxx-xxx-xxx


All students meeting IL state standards on examsPerformance

Growth


Reading Math M

Reading Math

R

M

Students with fewer than 10 absences in school year


3-year average


last 6 years









Based on teacher performance evaluations

Teachers with fewer than 10 absences in school year


Will measure how much students progress in learning each year 80%

Teachers

Professionalclimate

Learning climate



School

performance

School performance

2008-2012

Illinois

average

60% 55% to 65%

35% to 42%

42% to 55%

10% to 17%

5% to 6%

65%8585 6060 80

10 11 120908

8545 456540

90 904538 65

8101025

7 1010 105

85% 80% to 90% 75%8560858060

90456540

9045

85456538

12% to 17%

12% to 25%

810 10 10 51075102

9065

9045

8545 40

65 45

45%

90%

35% to 42%

72% to 85%

40%

48%

10%

5%

13% to 22%

18% to 30%

17%

20%

40%

48%

20%

39%

45%

90%

10%

5%

10%

5%

15%

5%

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

Comparison

Schools with

similar studentsPerformance range of

schools like yours

5% to 6%

10102 7 1010 10 8 55

TEACHERS?

38% to 56%

74% to 89%

45%

70%

9065

3890

4585

45 4065 45

45%

90%

5% 5%M M

R

M

R

M

77%

86%

2

72% to 82%

82% to 92%

1 to 3

55% to 65%63%

80%

80%

2.5

70%

7553 7240

77

60 6250 6330

70%

75% to 85%

80%

80

86

80% 75% to 85%

70%

80%

80%

80%

75% to 85%

75% to 85%

75% to 85%

70%

70%

70%

80

80

80

80



An Elementary School 101 S Main St. | City IL 00000 | xxx-xxx-xxx






White63.1%


Enrollment 1,000




$20,000$17,000



47%30%23%

Students with pre-school experience 20%

CURRICULUM/RESOURCE INFORMATION (To be standardized and populated by


Choir, band, art, stage, flag corps, Math Club, newspaper, ‘Do

Something’ community service, Environment Club,

Technology Club, Spirit Club, language clubs (French, Latin,

German, Spanish), Anime, National Honor Society,

cheerleading, Prevention Club, Chess Club, Be a Senator,

yearbook, Film Club, dance team




FROM THE PRINCIPAL (To be provided by school principal. Example content provided below.)

• Free breakfast program, “Best Buddies” tutoring, “Science

Stars”



Gifted and talented programs, Autism specialists

Special programming




Public (K-5)


Low-income


8%

45%

13%


Asian3.9%


Hispanic/Latino2.8%



(To be standardized and populated by ISBE. Example content provided below.)



Awards received




volleyball, Science Olympiad Team 1st Place in Region,











School

performance

Students entering Kindergarten ready to learn

Helps identify whether children entering Kindergarten are

developmentally prepared to succeed in school

Readiness & Success

On track



All students exceeding IL state standards on exams R

M

3rd graders meeting IL state standards on exams

3rd graders exceeding IL state standards on exams

5th graders meeting IL state standards on exams


Reading Math

R

M

Reading Math

R

M

Reading Math

R

M

Reading Math

R

M

An Elementary School 101 S Main St. | City IL 00000 | xxx-xxx-xxx


All students meeting IL state standards on examsPerformance

Growth


Reading Math M

Reading Math

R

M

Students with less than 10 absences in school year


3-year average


last 6 years









Based on teacher performance evaluations

Teachers with less than 10 absences in school year


Will measure how much students progress in learning each year

Teachers

Professionalclimate

Learning climate



School

performance

School performance

2008-2012

Illinois

average

10 11 120908

6538 4585 90

404590 65 45

7 82 10

510 10 10 10

5

9045

85 8565 44404538 65

8710 102 10 10 15105

45%

90%

10%

5%

44%

85%

10%

15%

35% to 42%

72% to 85%

40%

48%

13% to 22%

18% to 30%

14%

18%

35% to 42%

72% to 85%

40%

68%

13% to 22%

18% to 30%

15%

22%

10% to 17%

5% to 6%8565 45 6545

9040 45

9010%

5%

15%

5%

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

R

M

Comparison


Schools with

similar studentsPerformance range of

schools like yours

5% to 6%

7102

101010 5105 8

TEACHERS?

38% to 56%

74% to 89%

45%

70%

8538

65 45 654590

40 4590

45%

90%

5% 5%M M

R

M

R

M

77%

86%

2

72% to 82%

82% to 92%

1 to 3

55% to 65%63%

80%

80%

2.5

70%

40757253 77

623050 60 63

80%

80%

80%

80%

80% 75% to 85%

75% to 85%

75% to 85%

75% to 85%

75% to 85%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

80

86

80

80

80

80


A PROFILE OF ILLINOIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS: SELECTIONS FROM THE SCHOOL REPORT CARD FILES

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Student Assessment Division

October 2012


FOREWORD State and federal laws require public schools to release report cards to the public each year. This report provides an overview of the condition of education in Illinois public schools. The data contained herein were selected from school report card files for 2003 through 2012. State averages reported are based only on information from regular public schools (including charter schools). Excluded are data from private schools and special-purpose public schools, including vocational education, special education, university laboratory, and other state-funded schools.


CONTENTS PAGE Executive Summary 3 Graphical Presentations of Trend Data 9 Schools and Students 1: Number of Illinois Public Districts and Schools 10 2: Student Enrollment 11 3: Low-Income, Mobility, and Minority Percentages 12 4: Limited-English-Proficient Students, Dropouts, and Chronic Truants 13 5: Average Class Size 14 Student Performance 6: ISAT Reading—Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards 15 7: ISAT Mathematics—Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards 16 8: ISAT Science—Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards 17 9: PSAE—Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards 18 10: IAA Reading—Students at Satisfactory or Mastery Level 19 11: IAA Mathematics—Students at Satisfactory or Mastery Level 20 12: IAA Science—Students at Satisfactory or Mastery Level 21 13: ISAT Grade 5 Reading—Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards,

Disaggregated by Student Characteristics 22 14: PSAE Grade 11 Reading—Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards,

Disaggregated by Student Characteristics 23 15: ACT Composite Scores 24 16: High School Graduation Rates 25 17: Schools and Districts Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 26 Teacher Information 18: Teacher Demographics 27 19: Pupil-Teacher Ratios (PTR) 28 20: Teaching Experience 29 Financial Information 21: Average Teacher and Administrator Salaries 30 22: Operating Expenditure Per Pupil (OEPP) 31 23: Revenue Sources (Percentage) 32 Appendix A – Student Characteristics 33


A PROFILE OF ILLINOIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS: SELECTIONS FROM THE SCHOOL REPORT CARD FILES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS Number of school districts declined. The number of operating school districts declined from 891 in 2003 to 866 in 2012; there were 378 elementary districts, 100 high school districts, and 388 unit districts. Number of public schools declined significantly. The number of public schools declined significantly from 3,919 in 2003 to 3,873 in 2012. These figures include charter schools and regular public schools which issue school report cards. Increase in average school size. The average school size increased by about 2 percent, from 522 in 2003 to 534 in 2012. Student enrollment decreased in 2012 from 2011. Student enrollment in regular Illinois public schools increased steadily from in 2003 to 2007, then declined to 2,064,312 in 2010. Beginning in 2011, student enrollment is reported based on home school; the enrollment decreased from 2074,806 in 2011 to 2,066,692 in 2012. (Enrollment reported here includes only students in regular public schools.) Increase in low-income students. Low-income students increased from 37.9 percent of the enrollment in 2003 to 49.0 percent in 2012. Pupils are considered low-income if they receive or live in households that receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); are classified as homeless, migrant, runaway, Head Start, or foster children; or live in a household where the household income meets the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) income guidelines to receive free or reduced-price meals. Mobility rate declined. The mobility rate declined from 16.4 percent in 2003 to 13.1 percent in 2012. The mobility rate is the sum of the students transferred out and students transferred in, divided by the average daily enrollment, multiplied by 100. A student may be counted more than once, depending on the number of transfers the student makes in the year. Minority percentage increased. With new definition of race/ethnicity, http://www.isbe.net/sis/pdf/race_code11.pdf, students who are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian /Pacific Islander, Native American, or Two or More Races made up 49.0 percent of the enrollment in 2012, up from 41.4 percent in 2003. The increase in minority percentage is accounted for mainly by increases among Hispanic students. LEP students increased in last decade. The number of Limited-English-proficient


http://www.isbe.net/sis/pdf/race_code11.pdf

(LEP) students increased from 6.3 percent in 2003 to 9.4 percent in 2012. LEP students include those who are eligible for bilingual education. Dropout rate declined since 2003. The dropout rate declined from 4.9 percent in 2003 to 2.5 percent in 2012. Dropouts include students in grades 9-12 whose names have been removed from the district roster for any reason other than death, extended illness, graduation/completion of a program of studies, transfer to another school, or expulsion. Increase in chronic truancy rate. The chronic truancy rate was 8.6 percent in 2012, compared with 1.9 percent reported for 2003 and 3.2 percent reported for 2011. Beginning in 2012, chronic truants include students subject to compulsory attendance who have been absent without valid cause from such attendance for 5 percent or more of the regular attendance days, which is a more stringent criterion than the 10 percent used previously. Average class size generally declined at the middle school level but increased at the high school level. Between 2003 and 2012, the average class size for

Kindergarten increased from 20.6 to 20.9 Grade 1 declined from 21.3 to 21.2 Grade 3 declined from 22.5 to 22.0 Grade 6 declined from 23.6 to 22.4 Grade 8 declined from 22.8 to 21.5 High School (grades 9-12) increased from 17.6 to 19.2.

STUDENT PERFORMANCE Between 2007 and 2012, ISAT reading performance increased at all tested grades, 3 through 8. In 2012, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in reading at

Grade 3 was 76.1 percent Grade 4 was 76.0 percent Grade 5 was 77.8 percent Grade 6 was 81.7 percent Grade 7 was 78.1 percent Grade 8 was 86.2 percent.

Between 2007 and 2012, ISAT mathematics performance increased at all tested grades, 3 through 8. In 2012, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in mathematics at



Between 2007 and 2012, ISAT science performance remained the same at grade 4 and increased slightly at grade 7. In 2012, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in science at

Grade 4 was 79.8 percent Grade 7 was 79.9 percent.

Between 2007 and 2012, student performance declined in PSAE reading and mathematics, but increased in science. Beginning in 2011, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has amended its rules governing the State Assessment to define “grade 11” for the purpose of administering the Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE) or the Illinois Alternative Assessment (IAA). http://www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/2011/rule_grade_11_2011.pdf. In 2012, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in

Reading was 50.7 percent Mathematics was 51.6 percent Science was 51.7 percent.

Between 2008 and 2012, IAA reading performance declined at grades 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11, but increased at grade 7. In 2012, the percentage of students at the Satisfactory or Mastery performance level in reading at

Grade 3 was 48.6 percent Grade 4 was 52.8 percent Grade 5 was 54.3 percent Grade 6 was 62.5 percent Grade 7 was 65.1 percent Grade 8 was 69.5 percent Grade 11 was 71.3 percent.

[IAA scores in the Satisfactory and Mastery performance levels correspond, respectively, to scores on other state assessments that meet and exceed standards.]

Between 2008 and 2012, IAA mathematics performance declined at grades 3 and 5, but increased at grades 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11. In 2012, the percentage of students at the Satisfactory or Mastery performance level in mathematics at


Between 2008 and 2012, IAA science performance increased at grade 7 and decreased slightly at grade 11. In 2012, the percentage of students at the Satisfactory or Mastery performance level in science at

Grade 4 was 65.5 percent


http://www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/2011/rule_grade_11_2011.pdf


Differences among various groups of grade 5 students are evident in the ISAT reading results.

• White and Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races students performed better than Black, Hispanic, and Native American students, as measured by the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in ISAT reading at grade 5.

• Students with at-risk characteristics—including those who are limited English proficient (LEP), migrant, or from a low-income family, or who have an IEP—had considerably lower percentages meeting or exceeding state standards than students not considered to be at risk.

• Between 2011 and 2012, student performance increased for all categories of students.

Differences among various groups of grade 11 students are evident in the PSAE reading results.

• White and Asian students performed better than Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Two or More Races students, as measured by the percent of students meeting or exceeding state standards in PSAE reading at grade 11.


• Between 2011 and 2012, student performance slightly declined for all categories of students except for Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, IEP, and Low Income students.

Illinois ACT scores increased since 2003. The ACT Composite Score for Illinois public school students (report card schools) increased from 20.0 in 2003 to 20.6 in 2012. [The reported data include graduating students’ most recent ACT scores from ACT national or state testing.] Graduation rate declined in 2012. Based on the new federal definition of graduation calculation, the graduation rate declined from 87.8 percent in 2010 to 82.3 percent in 2012. [According to 2008 Regulations, states are required to calculate a four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate, starting school year 2010-2011. The graduation rate is calculated based on the federal guidance of NCLB High School Graduation Rate, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf.] Schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) increased between 2007 and


http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf

2012. The percent of schools not making AYP increased from 23.0 percent in 2007 to 65.7 percent in 2012. Districts not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) increased between 2007 and 2012. The percent of districts not making AYP increased from 28.1 percent in 2007 to 82.3 percent in 2012. [The targets for performance, attendance, and graduation increase each year. However, in 2012, Illinois received approval from USDE to use the same AYP targets as in the 2010-11 school year. Therefore, the targets in 2012 were 85 percent, 91 percent, and 82 percent, respectively.] TEACHER INFORMATION Increase in the percentage of Non-White teachers in the last decade. Non-White teachers account for 16.7 percent of the classroom teachers in 2012 compared to 15.4 percent in 2003. Non-White teachers include those who are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, Two or More Races, or unkonwn. [Beginning in 2011, teachers do not have to report race/ethnicity code.] Little change in the percentage of male classroom teachers. There is a downward trend in the percentage of male teachers, declining from 23.4 percent of the teaching force in 2003 to 23.1 percent in 2012. Percentage of teachers with graduate degrees increased. In 2012, teachers who had a master’s degree or higher accounted for 61.7 percent of the classroom teachers in Illinois public schools, up from 46.0 percent in 2003. Compared to 2003, pupil-teacher ratio increased slightly both at the elementary level and secondary level. Between 2003 and 2012, the pupil-teacher ratio slightly increased from 18.4:1 to 18.9:1 at the elementary level and slightly increased from 18.2:1 to 18.8:1 at the secondary level. Teaching experience (years) slightly decreased from 2011. The average teaching experience of Illinois public school teachers declined from 13.9 years in 2003 to 12.4 years in 2008 and has increased to 13.2 in 2011, then slightly decreased to 12.9 in 2012. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Average teacher salary with benefits increased by 29 percent since 2003. The average teacher salary increased from $51,672 in 2003 to $66,614 in 2012. But in terms of constant FY2003 dollars, average teacher salary with benefits declined from $51,672 to $47,157 during the same period. Average administrator salary with benefits increased by 22 percent since 2003. The


average administrator salary increased from $91,125 in 2003 to $110,870 in 2012. But in terms of constant FY2003 dollars, average administrator salary with benefits declined from $91,125 to $78,486 during the same period. Operating expenditure per pupil (OEPP) increased in the last decade. The statewide OEPP increased by 42.6 percent from $8,181 in 2002 to $11,664 in 2011. In terms of constant FY2002 dollars, the OEPP increased by 0.3 percent from $8,181 in 2002 to $8,202 in 2011. [The OEPP is the gross operating cost of a school district (excluding summer school, adult education, bond principal retired, and capital expenditures) divided by the Average Daily Attendance for the regular school term.] High school OEPP substantially higher than elementary and unit OEPP. In 2011, the OEPP for high school districts ($14,681) was at least 30 percent more than the elementary OEPP of $11,190 and the unit OEPP of $11,262. Education system revenues from the state declined as revenues from local and federal sources increased. This trend is evident in between 2008 and 2010. However, compared to 2010, the state funding clearly increased while local and federal funding decreased in terms of percentage. Between 2002 and 2011, state support for the public school system declined from 31.2 percent to 26.6 percent while local funding increased from 61.5 percent to 63.3 percent, and federal funding increased from 7.3 percent to 10.1 percent.


GRAPHICAL PRESENTATIONS OF TREND DATA The graphs that follow illustrate trend data between 2003 and 2012 for selected report card indicators. Analysis of these trends can provide the reader with useful information about the Illinois public K-12 education system.


Figure 1: Number of Illinois Public Districts and Schools

Number of school districts declined. The number of operating school districts declined from 891 in 2003 to 866 in 2012; there were 378 elementary districts, 100 high school districts, and 388 unit districts. Significant decrease in the number of public schools. The number of public schools decreased from 3,919 in 2003 to 3,873 in 2012. These figures include charter schools and regular public schools which issue school report cards. Increase in average school size. The average school size increased by about 2 percent, from 522 in 2003 to 534 in 2012.

891 868 866

3,919 3,904 3,873

522 531

534

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Districts Schools Ave. School Size


Figure 2: Student Enrollment

Student enrollment decreased in 2012 from 2011. Student enrollment in regular Illinois public schools increased steadily from 2,044,539 in 2003 to 2,077,856 in 2007, then declined to 2,064,312 in 2010. Beginning in 2011, student enrollment is reported based on home school; the enrollment decreased from 2,074,806 in 2011 to 2,066,692 in 2012. (Enrollment reported here includes only students in regular public schools.)

2,044,539

2,077,856

2,064,312

2,074,806

2,066,692

2,020,000

2,030,000

2,040,000

2,050,000

2,060,000

2,070,000

2,080,000

2,090,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Home School Enrollment

Serving School

Enrollment


Figure 3: Low-Income, Mobility, and Minority Percentages

Increase in low-income students. Low-income students increased from 37.9 percent of the enrollment in 2003 to 49.0 percent in 2012. Pupils are considered low-income if they receive or live in households that receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); are classified as homeless, migrant, runaway, Head Start, or foster children; or live in a household where the household income meets the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) income guidelines to receive free or reduced-price meals. Mobility rate declined. The mobility rate declined from 16.4 percent in 2003 to 13.1 percent in 2012. The mobility rate is the sum of the students transferred out and students transferred in, divided by the average daily enrollment, multiplied by 100. A student may be counted more than once, depending on the number of transfers the student makes in the year. Minority percentage increased. Students who are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian /Pacific Islander, Native American, or Two or More Races made up 49.0 percent of the enrollment in 2012, up from 41.4 percent in 2003. The increase in minority percentage is accounted for mainly by increases among Hispanic students.

37.9

49.0

16.4

13.1

41.4

49.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

%Low-Income %Mobility %Minority


Figure 4: Limited-English-Proficient Students, Dropouts, and Chronic Truants

LEP students increased in last decade. The number of Limited-English-proficient (LEP) students increased from 6.3 percent in 2003 to 9.4 percent in 2012. LEP students include those who are eligible for bilingual education. Dropout rate declined since 2003. The dropout rate declined from 4.9 percent in 2003 to 2.5 percent in 2012. Dropouts include students in grades 9-12 whose names have been removed from the district roster for any reason other than death, extended illness, graduation/completion of a program of studies, transfer to another school, or expulsion. Increase in chronic truancy rate. The chronic truancy rate was 8.6 percent in 2012, compared to 1.9 percent reported for 2003 and 3.2 percent reported for 2011. Beginning in 2012, chronic truants include students subject to compulsory attendance who have been absent without valid cause from such attendance for 5 percent or more of the regular attendance days, which is a more stringent criterion than the 10 percent used previously.

6.3

9.4

4.9

2.5

1.9

3.2

8.6

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

%LEP %Dropout %ChronicTruants

10% of school days

5% of school days


Figure 5: Average Class Size

In the last decade, average class size generally declined at the middle school level but increased at the high school level. Between 2003 and 2012, the average class size for

Kindergarten increased from 20.6 to 20.9 Grade 1 declined from 21.3 to 21.2 Grade 3 declined from 22.5 to 22.0 Grade 6 declined from 23.6 to 22.4 Grade 8 declined from 22.8 to 21.5 High School (grades 9-12) increased from 17.6 to 19.2.

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 8 High Sch.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Figure 6: ISAT Reading—

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards

Between 2007 and 2012, ISAT reading performance increased at all tested grades, 3 through 8. In 2012, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in reading at


73.0 69.7

81.8

71.7 73.5 81.4

72.2 73.5

83.6

73.7 74.7

84.1

74.7 76.4

85.0

76.1 77.8

86.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Figure 7: ISAT Mathematics—


Between 2007 and 2012, ISAT mathematics performance increased at all tested grades, 3 through 8. In 2012, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in mathematics at


86.8 82.5 81.3

85.1 81.4 80.4

85.2 82.4 81.7 86.3 83.4 83.7

87.3 84.0 86.3 87.7 83.6 85.0

0

20

40

60

80

100


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Figure 8: ISAT Science—


Between 2007 and 2012, ISAT science performance remained the same at grade 4 and increased slightly at grade 7. In 2012, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in science at


79.8 79.3 76.2 79.1 76.8 79.5 76.7 82.4 79.3 81.9 79.8 79.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 4 Grade 7

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Figure 9: PSAE—


Between 2007 and 2012, student performance declined in PSAE reading and mathematics, but increased in science. In 2012, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in

Reading was 50.7 percent Mathematics was 51.6 percent Science was 51.7 percent.

Starting 2011, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has amended its rules governing the State Assessment to define “grade 11” for the purpose of administering the Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE) or the Illinois Alternative Assessment (IAA). http://www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/2011/rule_grade_11_2011.pdf.

54.1 52.7 51.0 53.3 53.0 51.2 56.9

51.6 50.5 54.0 52.7 52.4 51.0 51.3 49.2 50.7 51.6 51.7

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Reading Mathematics Science

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


http://www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/2011/rule_grade_11_2011.pdf

Figure 10: IAA Reading—

Percentage of Students at Satisfactory or Mastery Level

Between 2008 and 2012, IAA reading performance declined at grades 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11, but increased at grade 7. In 2012, the percentage of students at the Satisfactory or Mastery performance level in reading at


IAA scores in the Satisfactory and Mastery performance levels correspond, respectively, to scores on other state assessments that meet and exceed standards.

57.0 58.7

69.5 72.1

56.2 58.6

68.2 69.5

53.6 58.9

70.6 70.8

50.3 54.9

69.6 68.2

48.6 54.3

69.5 71.3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Figure 11: IAA Mathematics—

Percentage of Students at Satisfactory or Mastery Level

Between 2008 and 2012, IAA mathematics performance declined at grades 3 and 5, but increased at grades 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11. In 2012, the percentage of students at the Satisfactory or Mastery performance level in mathematics at


IAA scores in Satisfactory and Mastery performance levels correspond, respectively, to scores on other state assessments that meet and exceed standards.

61.9 64.8

68.1 71.8

60.3 64.7

68.5 70.3

61.1 66.2

73.1 73.4

56.8 63.9

71.8 72.1

57.6 63.4

72.0 74.1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Figure 12: IAA Science— Percentage of Students at Satisfactory or Mastery Level

Between 2008 and 2012, IAA science performance increased at grade 7 and decreased slightly at grade 11. In 2012, the percentage of students at the Satisfactory or Mastery performance level in science at

Grade 4 was 65.5 percent Grade 7 was 75.1 percent Grade 11 was 76.3 percent.

IAA scores in the Satisfactory and Mastery performance levels correspond, respectively, to scores on other state assessments that meet and exceed standards.

65.7 71.2

76.9

66.8 72.1

75.4 70.9

76.6 77.2

68.1

76.0 74.9

65.5

75.1 76.3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Figure 13: ISAT Grade 5 Reading--Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards, Disaggregated by Student Characteristics

See Appendix A for definitions of student characteristics. Differences among various groups of grade 5 students are evident in the ISAT reading results.

• White and Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races students performed better than Black, Hispanic, and Native American students, as measured by the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in ISAT reading at grade 5.


• Between 2011 and 2012, student performance increased for all categories of students.

76.4 73.4

79.6 86.2

60.7 64.8

90.0 86.7

70.7

81.6

38.3

82.2

28.1

34.9

64.1

89.0

77.8 74.3

81.5 87.3

61.5 67.3

90.8 87.4

73.4

83.3

38.8

83.5

30.1

59.0

66.2

90.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

2011 2012


Figure 14: PSAE Grade 11 Reading--Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standards, Disaggregated by Student Characteristics

See Appendix A for definitions of student characteristics. Differences among various groups of grade 11 students are evident in the PSAE reading results.

• White and Asian students performed better than Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Two or More Races students, as measured by the percent of students meeting or exceeding state standards in PSAE reading at grade 11.


• Between 2011 and 2012, student performance slightly declined for all categories of students except for Hispanic, Asian, Native

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, IEP, and Low Income students.

51.0 48.0 54.0

64.3

24.8 33.1

66.0

48.2 45.1

56.5

15.6

55.7

3.5

22.2

29.9

64.8

50.7 47.7

53.6

63.7

24.2

33.5

66.2

49.3 46.0

55.6

16.4

55.1

2.9 3.8

30.7

64.3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

2011 2012


Figure 15: ACT Composite Scores

Illinois ACT scores increased since 2003. The ACT Composite Score for Illinois public school students (report card schools) increased from 20.0 in 2003 to 20.6 in 2012. Note: ACT scores range from a low of 1 to a high of 36. The reported data include graduating students’ most recent ACT scores from ACT national or state testing. “RC Schools” are regular public schools that must release school report cards. Data for “Illinois” and the “Nation” include all respective schools, public as well as nonpublic.

20.0

20.6

20.2

20.9 20.8

21.1

19.4

19.6

19.8

20.0

20.2

20.4

20.6

20.8

21.0

21.2

21.4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

RC Schools Illinois Nation


Figure 16: High School Graduation Rates

Graduation rate declined in 2012. Based on the new federal definition of graduation calculation, the graduation rate declined from 87.8 percent in 2010 to 82.3 percent in 2012. According to 2008 Regulations, states are required to calculate a four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate, starting school year 2010-2011. The graduation rate is calculated based on the federal guidance of NCLB High School Graduation Rate, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf.

86.0 87.8

83.8

82.3

70.0

74.0

78.0

82.0

86.0

90.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate


http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf

Figure 17: Schools and Districts Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) increased between 2007 and 2012. The percent of schools not making AYP increased from 23.0 percent in 2007 to 65.7 percent in 2012. Districts not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) increased between 2007 and 2012. The percent of districts not making AYP increased from 28.1 percent in 2007 to 82.3 percent in 2012. Note: The targets for performance, attendance, and graduation increase each year. However, in 2012, Illinois received approval from USDE to use the same AYP targets as in the 2010-11 school year. Therefore, the targets in 2012 were 85 percent, 91 percent, and 82 percent, respectively.

23.0 28.1

30.8

39.2 39.7

49.4 51.1

64.4 65.3

80.1

65.7

82.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Schools Districts

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Figure 18: Teacher Demographics

Increase in the percentage of Non-White teachers in the last decade. Non-White teachers account for 16.7 percent of the classroom teachers in 2012 compared to 15.4 percent in 2003. Non-White teachers include those who are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, Two or More Races, or unkonwn. [Beginning in 2011, teachers do not have to report race/ethnicity code.] Little change in the percentage of male classroom teachers. There is a downward trend in the percentage of male teachers, declining from 23.4 percent of the teaching force in 2003 to 23.1 percent in 2012. Percentage of teachers with graduate degrees increased. In 2012, teachers who had a master’s degree or higher accounted for 61.7 percent of the classroom teachers in Illinois public schools, up from 46.0 percent in 2003.

15.4 16.7

23.4 23.1

46.0

61.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

%Minority %Male %With Graduate Degrees


Figure 19: Pupil-Teacher Ratios (PTR)

Compared to 2003, pupil-teacher ratio increased slightly both at the elementary level and secondary level. Between 2003 and 2012, the pupil-teacher ratio slightly increased from 18.4:1 to 18.9:1 at the elementary level and slightly increased from 18.2:1 to 18.8:1 at the secondary level.

18.4

18.9

18.2

18.8

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Elementary PTR High School PTR


Figure 20: Teaching Experience

Teaching experience (years) slightly decreased from 2011. The average teaching experience of Illinois public school teachers declined from 13.9 years in 2003 to 12.4 years in 2008 and has increased to 13.2 in 2011, then slightly decreased to 12.9 in 2012.

13.9

12.4

13.2 12.9

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Experience in Years


Figure 21: Average Teacher and Administrator Salaries

Average teacher salary with benefits increased by 29 percent since 2003. The average teacher salary increased from $51,672 in 2003 to $66,614 in 2012. But in terms of constant FY2003 dollars, average teacher salary with benefits declined from $51,672 to $47,157 during the same period. Average administrator salary with benefits increased by 22 percent since 2003. The average administrator salary increased from $91,125 in 2003 to $110,870 in 2012. But in terms of constant FY2003 dollars, average administrator salary with benefits declined from $91,125 to $78,486 during the same period.

$66,614

$51,672 $47,157

$110,870

$91,125

$78,486

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Teacher Current $ Teacher FY2003 $ Admin. Current $ Admin. FY2003 $


Figure 22: Operating Expenditure Per Pupil (OEPP)

[Unless stated otherwise, OEPP data are reported in current dollars.] Operating expenditure per pupil (OEPP) increased in the last decade. The statewide OEPP increased by 42.6 percent from $8,181 in 2002 to $11,664 in 2011. In terms of constant FY2002 dollars, the OEPP increased by 0.3 percent from $8,181 in 2002 to $8,202 in 2011. [The OEPP is the gross operating cost of a school district (excluding summer school, adult education, bond principal retired, and capital expenditures) divided by the Average Daily Attendance for the regular school term.] High school OEPP substantially higher than elementary and unit OEPP. In 2011, the OEPP for high school districts ($14,681) was at least 30 percent more than the elementary OEPP of $11,190 and the unit OEPP of $11,262. [Prior-year data are reported for OEPP in the school report cards, e.g., 2011 data are reported in the 2012 school report cards.]

$8,202

$8,181

$11,664

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

$14,000

$15,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Statewide (Constant 2002 $) Statewide Elementary High School Unit


Figure 23: Revenue Sources (Percentage)

Education system revenues from the state declined as revenues from local and federal sources increased. This trend is evident in between 2008 and 2010. However, compared to 2010, the state funding clearly increased while local and federal funding decreased in terms of percentage. Between 2002 and 2011, state support for the public school system declined from 31.2 percent to 26.6 percent while local funding increased from 61.5 percent to 63.3 percent, and federal funding increased from 7.3 percent to 10.1 percent. [Prior year data are reported for revenue data in the school report cards, e.g., 2011 data are reported in the 2012 school report cards.]

61.5 63.3

31.2

26.6

7.3 10.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Local State Federal


Appendix A

Student Characteristics

All includes students in every category. Two or More Races includes all students who represent more than one racial or ethnic group. IEP stands for Individualized Education Program, which is a written plan for a student with a disability who is eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Non-IEP refers to students who do not have an IEP. LEP includes limited-English-proficient students who are eligible for bilingual education. Migrant refers to students who are eligible to participate in a Title 1 Migrant Education Program. Low Income refers to low-income students, who are students from families receiving public aid, living in institutions for neglected or delinquent children, being supported in foster homes with public funds, or eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches. Non-Low Income refers to students who are not from low-income families.


SCHOOL REPORT CARD: FIFTEEN-YEAR STATEWIDE TREND DATA (1998-2012)Regular Schools/Districts 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Schools within: Elementary Districts 1,193 1,196 1,208 1,210 1,215 1,219 1,211 1,207 1,203 1,213 1,222 1,228 1,230 1,230 1,224 High Sch. Districts 148 145 144 145 146 146 146 149 149 149 149 152 153 153 152 Unit Districts 2,523 2,538 2,555 2,553 2,550 2,554 2,550 2,528 2,538 2,526 2,523 2,530 2,529 2,521 2,497 Total 3,864 3,879 3,907 3,908 3,911 3,919 3,907 3,884 3,890 3,888 3,894 3,910 3,912 3,904 3,873Number of Districts Elementary 388 385 384 383 383 383 381 379 377 376 378 379 379 379 378 High School 104 102 101 101 101 101 101 101 100 100 100 100 100 101 100 Unit 406 408 409 408 407 407 404 399 396 395 390 390 389 388 388 Total 898 895 894 892 891 891 886 879 873 871 868 869 868 868 866

Report Card Variable 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012NOTE: Blank cells indicate that the data were not available or not reported for that year.Enrollment White 62.6% 62.0% 61.1% 60.1% 59.3% 58.6% 57.7% 56.7% 55.7% 54.9% 54.0% 53.3% 52.8% 51.4% 51.0% Black 20.8% 20.8% 20.9% 20.9% 20.8% 20.7% 20.8% 20.3% 19.9% 19.6% 19.2% 19.1% 18.8% 18.3% 18.0% Hispanic 13.3% 13.9% 14.6% 15.4% 16.2% 17.0% 17.7% 18.3% 18.7% 19.3% 19.9% 20.8% 21.1% 23.0% 23.6% Asian/Pacific Islander 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.1% 4.2% Asian 4.1% 4.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% Native American 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% Multi-Racial/ Two or More Races (Starting 2011) 0.7% 1.8% 2.2% 2.7% 2.5% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% Total Number 1,951,998 1,962,026 1,983,991 2,007,170 2,029,821 2,044,539 2,060,048 2,062,912 2,075,277 2,077,856 2,074,167 2,070,125 2,064,312 2,074,806 2,066,692

Low-Income Enrollment 36.3% 36.1% 36.7% 36.9% 37.5% 37.9% 39.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.9% 41.1% 42.9% 45.4% 48.1% 49.0%

LEP Enrollment 6.3% 6.4% 6.1% 6.3% 6.7% 6.3% 6.7% 6.6% 6.6% 7.2% 7.5% 8.0% 7.6% 8.8% 9.4%

Dropout Rate 6.2% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.1% 4.9% 4.6% 4.0% 3.5% 3.5% 4.1% 3.5% 3.8% 2.7% 2.5%

Chronic Truancy Rate 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 3.7% 3.6% 3.2% 8.6%

Mobility Rate 18.2% 18.1% 17.5% 17.2% 16.5% 16.4% 16.8% 16.1% 16.0% 15.2% 14.9% 13.5% 13.0% 12.8% 13.1%

Student Attendance Rate 93.9% 93.6% 93.9% 93.7% 94.0% 94.0% 94.2% 93.9% 94.0% 93.7% 93.3% 93.7% 93.9% 94.0% 94.4%

Parental Contact 95.5% 96.1% 97.2% 94.5% 95.0% 95.9% 96.3% 95.7% 96.6% 96.1% 96.8% 96.7% 96.2% 96.0% 95.3%

Average Class Size Kindergarten 22.1 21.8 21.3 20.9 20.5 20.6 21.0 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.5 20.5 20.7 20.9 20.9 Gr 1 22.8 22.3 21.6 21.6 21.1 21.3 21.6 21.5 21.5 21.0 21.0 20.9 21.2 21.6 21.2 Gr 2 21.6 21.3 21.1 21.3 21.4 21.8 21.5 Gr 3 23.2 23.0 22.4 22.3 22.1 22.5 22.6 22.3 22.1 21.8 21.7 21.8 22.1 22.3 22.0 Gr 4 22.9 22.5 22.3 22.2 22.6 22.9 22.4 Gr 5 23.4 22.8 22.7 22.6 22.8 23.3 22.8 Gr 6 24.3 23.8 23.9 24.0 23.6 23.6 23.7 23.4 23.4 22.6 22.2 22.0 21.5 22.0 22.4 Gr 7 22.6 21.8 21.6 21.1 21.1 21.3 21.3 Gr 8 23.5 23.1 22.9 22.6 22.3 22.8 23.1 22.9 22.7 21.9 21.5 21.4 21.0 21.3 21.5 High School 18.9 18.3 18.4 18.2 18.8 17.6 19.9 19.7 19.7 18.9 19.6 19.2 19.7 19.2 19.2


SCHOOL REPORT CARD: FIFTEEN-YEAR STATEWIDE TREND DATA (1998-2012)Report Card Variable 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Minutes Per Day Devoted to: Math Gr 3 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 59 60 61

Gr 6 50 51 50 51 51 52 52 52 53 53 54 54 54 55 56Gr 8 48 48 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 52 54

Science Gr 3 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 30 30 30 30 30 31Gr 6 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44Gr 8 44 44 44 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 46

English Gr 3 147 148 148 147 147 146 146 146 145 145 145 145 145 143 143Gr 6 108 108 108 107 107 107 105 104 105 104 104 104 103 103 103Gr 8 90 91 92 92 93 94 93 93 93 93 93 92 93 91 92

Social Sc Gr 3 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30Gr 6 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43Gr 8 45 45 44 45 44 44 44 44 45 44 44 44 44 44 44

Teacher Information White 84.8% 84.9% 85.0% 84.7% 85.0% 84.6% 85.0% 84.3% 84.9% 85.1% 84.9% 85.1% 85.2% 82.4% 83.3% Black 11.3% 11.0% 10.7% 10.6% 10.2% 10.2% 9.8% 9.9% 9.2% 8.8% 8.7% 8.3% 8.1% 6.1% 7.1% Hispanic 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% 3.7% 3.7% 4.1% 4.0% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.9% 5.0% 5.2% 5.0% 5.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% Asian 1.2% 1.3% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% Native American 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Multi-Racial/ Two or More Races (Starting 2011) 0.7% 0.8% Unknown 4.3% 2.0% Male 24.8% 24.6% 24.4% 24.0% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.5% 23.1% 23.0% 22.9% 22.9% 23.0% 23.1% 23.1% Female 75.2% 75.4% 75.6% 76.0% 76.6% 76.6% 76.6% 76.5% 76.9% 77.0% 77.1% 77.1% 77.0% 76.9% 76.9% Total Number 116,574 119,718 122,671 125,735 126,544 129,068 125,702 128,079 127,010 127,010 131,488 133,017 132,502 128,262 127,830

Av. Teaching Exper in Yrs 15.0 15.0 14.8 14.5 14.2 13.9 13.8 13.6 13.0 12.9 12.4 12.5 12.7 13.2 12.9 Bachelor's Degree 53.5% 53.1% 53.2% 53.8% 53.9% 53.9% 51.3% 50.1% 49.3% 47.6% 46.7% 44.1% 42.2% 39.5% 37.8% Graduate Degree 46.3% 46.7% 46.6% 46.0% 46.0% 46.0% 48.6% 49.1% 50.6% 52.3% 53.2% 55.8% 57.4% 60.4% 61.7% Teachers Teaching with Emerg/Prov Credentials 2.4% 2.5% 1.7% 1.9% 1.6% 1.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 2.3% 2.1% 1.8% 1.9% 1.4% 3.2% 0.7% 1.2% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7%

Pupil-Teacher Ratio--Elem 20.0 19.6 19.3 19.1 19.1 18.4 19.4 18.9 19.1 18.8 18.3 18.4 18.2 18.8 18.9Pupil-Teacher Ratio--Sec 18.5 18.1 18.1 18.0 18.3 18.2 18.8 18.4 18.9 18.8 18.0 18.0 18.2 18.9 18.8Pupil-Certified Staff Ratio 14.6 14.3 14.1 13.9 14.0 13.8 14.1 13.8 13.9 13.9 13.5 13.3 13.3 13.6 13.7Pupil-Administrator Ratio 250.6 243.3 239.3 233.9 222.6 221.1 208.7 209.5 221.9 230.6 211.6 201.8 203.8 211.3 205.0

Teacher Salary $43,806 $45,337 $46,584 $47,929 $49,702 $51,672 $54,446 $55,558 $56,685 $58,275 $60,871 $61,402 $63,296 $64,978 $66,614Administrator Salary $73,423 $76,917 $80,495 $84,314 $87,987 $91,125 $93,976 $97,051 $100,396 $102,310 $105,117 $106,217 $109,091 $109,759 $110,870

Instruct Expend Per Pupil $3,747 $3,990 $4,291 $4,425 $4,667 $4,842 $5,022 $5,216 $5,366 $5,567 $5,808 $6,103 $6,483 $6,773 $6,824Oper Expend Per Pupil $6,281 $6,682 $7,146 $7,483 $7,926 $8,181 $8,482 $8,786 $9,099 $9,488 $9,907 $10,417 $11,197 $11,537 $11,664

Expenditure by Function: Instruction 47.6% 46.9% 47.0% 46.1% 45.8% 45.5% 46.1% 46.9% 47.4% 47.8% 47.5% 46.7% 46.1% 47.5% 48.3% General Administration 2.6% 2.7% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% Supporting Services 32.0% 32.2% 32.9% 32.0% 32.3% 31.0% 31.6% 31.5% 32.5% 32.7% 32.4% 32.7% 32.2% 31.5% 30.7% Other Expenditures 17.8% 18.2% 17.7% 19.3% 19.5% 21.0% 19.7% 19.0% 17.5% 17.0% 17.6% 18.2% 18.5% 17.7% 17.7%



Expenditure by Fund: Education 73.0% 72.0% 71.3% 70.6% 70.0% 69.7% 70.1% 71.5% 72.2% 73.0% 72.6% 71.5% 69.6% 72.9% 73.7% Operations & Maint 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.8% 9.2% 8.9% 8.9% 8.4% 8.4% 8.6% 8.5% 8.6% 7.9% 6.0% 5.9% Transportation 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% Debt Service* 4.8% 5.1% 5.0% 5.1% 5.5% 5.7% 6.0% 6.5% 6.6% 6.2% 6.7% 6.3% 7.0% 7.2% 7.4% Tort** 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% Municipal Ret./Soc. Secu 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% Fire Prevention & Safety 1.8% 1.7% 1.1% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% Site & Constr/Cap Improv 6.3% 7.2% 8.6% 9.0% 9.3% 9.8% 9.0% 7.5% 6.5% 5.4% 5.6% 6.8% 7.9% 6.4% 5.1%* Was Bond & Interest prior to 2010, so 2010 cannot be compared to previous years.** Was Rent prior to 2010, so 2010 cannot be compared to previous years.

Revenue by Source Local Property Taxes 54.4% 55.4% 56.6% 57.0% 58.2% 58.8% 57.6% 58.7% 58.4% 58.9% 58.2% Other Local Funding 7.5% 6.1% 5.4% 5.0% 5.1% 6.0% 7.3% 6.3% 6.9% 6.4% 5.1% General State Aid 17.9% 18.7% 17.9% 18.0% 18.5% 18.2% 18.1% 18.6% 14.5% 14.9% 17.1% Other State Funding 12.7% 12.5% 12.1% 11.9% 10.1% 9.3% 9.7% 9.0% 8.3% 7.5% 9.5% Federal Funding 7.4% 7.3% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 7.7% 7.3% 7.4% 11.9% 12.4% 10.1%

All expenditure and revenue data listed above are for prior years, e.g., $7,926 listed in the 2002 report card represents the 2001 OEPP.

ACT State Averages for All Students in Regular Public Schools* Composite 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.7 19.9 20.0 20.0 20.1 20.3 20.3 20.5 20.6 20.5 20.6 20.6 English 20.7 20.9 20.8 21.0 19.1 19.3 19.4 19.6 20.0 20.0 20.1 20.2 19.9 20.3 20.1 Mathematics 21.6 21.5 21.6 21.7 20.1 20.1 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.6 20.6 20.5 20.7 20.9 Reading 21.6 21.5 21.6 21.8 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.0 20.4 20.2 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.5 20.5 Science 21.5 21.4 21.5 21.7 19.8 19.9 20.0 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.3 20.5 20.3 20.5 20.6* 2002 data include, for the first time, students' most recent ACT scores from either PSAE testing or national ACT testing.

Graduation Rate 81.8% 81.9% 82.6% 83.2% 85.2% 86.0% 86.6% 87.4% 87.8% 85.9% 86.5% 87.1% 87.8% 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate 83.8% 82.3% 5-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate 84.0%

Overall Student Performance (Percentage Meeting or Exceeding Standards) All State Tests** 60.1% 61.0% 62.4% 65.2% 72.9% 73.8% 74.8% 75.5% 76.4% 76.5% 76.7% Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) 63.1% 62.7% 63.9% 65.9% 69.2% 77.0% 78.7% 79.1% 79.8% 80.9% 82.0% 82.1% Prairie State Achievement Test (PSAE) 55.8% 56.1% 55.2% 56.4% 54.9% 54.3% 52.6% 52.5% 53.0% 53.0% 50.5% 51.3% Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA) 36.4% 46.0% 44.3% 53.7% 62.6% 59.1% 66.3% 66.5% 68.6% 66.2% 66.3%** 2007-08 is the first year LEP students who would have taken IMAGE in the past took ISAT or the PSAE with accommodations.

ISAT Performance Levels for All Students

Grade 3 - Reading 1. Academic warning 8% 6% 7% 6.8% 8.1% 7.0% 6.6% 5.7% 5.3% 6.8% 4.7% 5.4% 5.8% 5.2% 2. Below standards 31% 32% 31% 31.0% 29.8% 27.9% 26.7% 23.6% 21.7% 21.5% 23.2% 20.9% 19.5% 18.7% 3. Meets standards 44% 41% 43% 43.6% 40.1% 42.4% 45.1% 47.3% 48.8% 47.6% 46.2% 45.9% 47.6% 46.1% 4. Exceeds standards 17% 21% 19% 18.6% 21.9% 22.7% 21.5% 23.4% 24.1% 24.2% 26.0% 27.8% 27.1% 29.9%



Grade 3 - Mathematics 1. Academic warning 12% 10% 8% 7.2% 6.8% 6.8% 5.3% 3.9% 3.7% 3.5% 3.3% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2. Below standards 20% 21% 18% 18.6% 17.4% 14.0% 15.4% 10.5% 9.5% 11.4% 11.4% 10.7% 9.8% 9.3% 3. Meets standards 47% 46% 46% 43.9% 44.6% 46.1% 45.2% 47.1% 44.7% 44.1% 44.2% 44.7% 43.2% 45.2% 4. Exceeds standards 21% 23% 28% 30.3% 31.1% 33.0% 34.1% 38.5% 42.0% 41.0% 41.0% 41.7% 44.1% 42.5%

Grade 4 - Reading 1. Academic warning 1.6% 1.1% 1.8% 1.4% 1.2% 0.9% 1.0% 2. Below standards 25.5% 25.2% 25.0% 24.8% 25.1% 24.3% 23.0% 3. Meets standards 46.6% 48.3% 46.6% 45.9% 44.8% 44.5% 47.1% 4. Exceeds standards 26.3% 25.4% 26.6% 27.9% 28.9% 30.2% 28.9%Grade 4 - Mathematics 1. Academic warning 1.6% 1.2% 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 2. Below standards 13.6% 12.5% 14.5% 13.1% 12.9% 11.1% 10.7% 3. Meets standards 58.7% 56.9% 58.3% 58.2% 57.7% 60.1% 57.1% 4. Exceeds standards 26.1% 29.5% 26.3% 27.6% 28.2% 27.6% 31.0%Grade 4 - Science 1. Academic warning 1% 8% 7.6% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 2.8% 3.5% 3.5% 3.1% 2.8% 3.5% 2.6% 2. Below standards 35% 26% 25.2% 26.5% 26.2% 23.6% 17.4% 16.7% 20.3% 20.1% 20.5% 17.2% 17.6% 3. Meets standards 51% 54% 53.3% 52.2% 54.6% 55.1% 64.5% 61.5% 59.1% 59.2% 59.6% 58.4% 59.7% 4. Exceeds standards 13% 11% 13.8% 14.3% 13.2% 16.3% 15.4% 18.2% 17.1% 17.6% 17.0% 21.0% 20.1%

Grade 5 - Reading 1. Academic warning 1% 0% 1% 1.5% 1.0% 1.7% 1.8% 1.2% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 2. Below standards 38% 41% 40% 39.4% 38.6% 37.4% 35.4% 30.4% 29.6% 25.9% 26.0% 25.0% 23.2% 22.0% 3. Meets standards 37% 39% 34% 36.8% 37.3% 35.9% 43.3% 46.5% 44.1% 46.3% 47.6% 44.7% 49.1% 47.2% 4. Exceeds standards 24% 20% 25% 22.3% 23.1% 25.0% 19.4% 22.0% 25.6% 27.3% 25.9% 30.0% 27.3% 30.6%Grade 5 - Mathematics 1. Academic warning 6% 6% 4% 5.2% 3.5% 2.9% 3.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 2. Below standards 39% 37% 34% 32.0% 28.1% 25.2% 23.6% 20.8% 17.0% 18.1% 17.3% 16.3% 15.5% 15.7% 3. Meets standards 53% 52% 55% 54.9% 58.6% 59.8% 60.8% 64.0% 62.8% 64.2% 66.2% 65.8% 64.6% 65.9% 4. Exceeds standards 3% 5% 6% 7.9% 9.7% 12.0% 12.4% 14.6% 19.7% 17.1% 16.3% 17.6% 19.4% 17.7%

Grade 6 - Reading 1. Academic warning 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 2. Below standards 26.9% 26.4% 20.7% 19.9% 18.6% 15.7% 18.1% 3. Meets standards 53.4% 54.3% 53.4% 52.7% 55.1% 56.8% 56.5% 4. Exceeds standards 19.4% 19.1% 25.7% 27.2% 26.1% 27.3% 25.2%Grade 6 - Mathematics 1. Academic warning 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 2. Below standards 20.1% 18.0% 16.7% 17.1% 14.9% 15.5% 14.6% 3. Meets standards 62.9% 62.2% 62.0% 58.9% 60.2% 58.0% 58.9% 4. Exceeds standards 16.2% 19.2% 20.7% 23.5% 24.4% 25.9% 26.0%



Grade 7 - Reading 1. Academic warning 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 2. Below standards 27.5% 26.1% 21.8% 22.0% 22.3% 20.8% 21.5% 3. Meets standards 60.0% 58.3% 59.1% 56.8% 57.8% 58.0% 58.0% 4. Exceeds standards 12.0% 15.0% 18.6% 20.7% 19.6% 20.8% 20.1%Grade 7 - Mathematics 1. Academic warning 2.7% 2.3% 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 2.2% 1.4% 2. Below standards 21.3% 18.3% 17.8% 15.6% 14.1% 13.5% 14.0% 3. Meets standards 55.4% 54.2% 54.5% 55.0% 56.2% 53.9% 53.5% 4. Exceeds standards 20.6% 25.2% 25.9% 27.7% 28.2% 30.4% 31.1%Grade 7 - Science 1. Academic warning 12% 11% 9.9% 9.7% 10.4% 10.4% 6.3% 7.0% 6.4% 7.0% 5.4% 5.7% 8.6% 2. Below standards 16% 17% 16.8% 16.6% 15.2% 15.0% 12.8% 13.7% 14.5% 13.6% 12.2% 12.4% 11.6% 3. Meets standards 54% 52% 56.2% 56.2% 57.8% 54.3% 61.7% 55.2% 55.8% 55.7% 60.4% 57.8% 54.6% 4. Exceeds standards 18% 20% 17.1% 17.5% 16.6% 20.3% 19.2% 24.1% 23.4% 23.8% 22.0% 24.1% 25.3%

Grade 8 - Reading 1. Academic warning 1% 0% 1% 1.0% 0.5% 1.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 2. Below standards 27% 28% 34% 31.1% 35.8% 31.3% 26.6% 20.6% 17.7% 18.2% 16.0% 15.7% 14.8% 13.6% 3. Meets standards 54% 56% 56% 57.8% 54.0% 57.4% 61.3% 70.2% 69.9% 73.0% 74.6% 72.4% 74.9% 76.1% 4. Exceeds standards 18% 16% 10% 10.2% 9.7% 9.7% 11.5% 9.0% 11.8% 8.4% 9.0% 11.7% 10.1% 10.1%Grade 8 - Mathematics 1. Academic warning 5% 8% 7% 7.3% 6.3% 5.6% 5.9% 2.1% 1.2% 1.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 2. Below standards 52% 46% 42% 40.2% 40.6% 40.0% 39.7% 19.7% 17.5% 18.0% 17.5% 15.7% 13.3% 14.7% 3. Meets standards 36% 35% 37% 37.3% 37.6% 37.5% 37.4% 52.7% 52.3% 53.1% 54.5% 53.0% 54.5% 52.4% 4. Exceeds standards 7% 12% 13% 15.2% 15.5% 16.9% 16.9% 25.5% 29.0% 27.2% 27.2% 30.7% 31.8% 32.6%

PSAE Performance Levels for All Students

Grade 11 - Reading 1. Academic warning 8% 8.0% 7.5% 8.2% 7.9% 8.4% 8.4% 10.1% 8.5% 9.0% 10.1% 9.9% 2. Below standards 34% 33.9% 36.1% 35.0% 32.6% 33.2% 37.5% 36.6% 34.6% 37.0% 38.9% 39.4% 3. Meets standards 46% 45.2% 44.8% 46.8% 46.4% 44.4% 43.1% 42.9% 45.0% 44.1% 40.7% 41.6% 4. Exceeds standards 12% 13.0% 11.6% 10.0% 13.1% 14.0% 10.9% 10.4% 11.9% 9.9% 10.4% 9.0%Grade 11 - Mathematics 1. Academic warning 9% 10.0% 9.5% 9.7% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 11.1% 11.0% 10.6% 10.0% 10.7% 2. Below standards 37% 36.4% 37.2% 37.1% 37.4% 36.6% 37.5% 35.9% 37.4% 36.7% 38.7% 37.7% 3. Meets standards 45% 45.2% 46.6% 42.8% 45.6% 45.8% 42.8% 42.2% 42.2% 42.4% 43.1% 42.2% 4. Exceeds standards 9% 8.4% 6.7% 10.3% 7.2% 7.9% 9.9% 10.8% 9.4% 10.3% 8.2% 9.4%Grade 11 - Science 1. Academic warning 12% 10.6% 10.7% 10.6% 10.2% 8.3% 8.7% 9.5% 8.9% 9.7% 8.6% 8.8% 2. Below standards 38% 36.6% 38.0% 36.5% 37.3% 40.9% 40.3% 39.3% 40.7% 37.9% 42.2% 39.6% 3. Meets standards 39% 41.1% 40.0% 41.0% 41.4% 40.1% 40.3% 40.4% 40.3% 41.6% 39.6% 41.1% 4. Exceeds standards 11% 11.7% 11.3% 11.9% 11.1% 10.7% 10.7% 10.8% 10.2% 10.8% 9.6% 10.6%



IAA Performance Levels for All Students

Grade 3 - Reading 1. Entry 6.2% 22.5% 24.4% 19.3% 15.4% 15.3% 19.9% 19.8% 18.7% 19.8% 19.3% 2. Foundational 49.0% 18.5% 20.3% 16.5% 13.0% 16.7% 23.1% 24.0% 27.7% 29.9% 32.1% 3. Satisfactory 37.1% 32.4% 37.4% 34.7% 45.1% 47.0% 30.7% 32.5% 36.2% 37.2% 37.8% 4. Mastery 7.6% 26.6% 17.9% 29.5% 26.5% 21.1% 26.3% 23.8% 17.5% 13.1% 10.8%Grade 3 - Mathematics 1. Entry 7.0% 20.4% 23.3% 16.3% 9.9% 12.7% 22.3% 22.4% 19.0% 23.1% 22.9% 2. Foundational 51.1% 25.1% 32.0% 24.4% 23.8% 27.3% 15.8% 17.3% 19.9% 20.0% 19.4% 3. Satisfactory 36.1% 30.2% 29.1% 31.5% 35.9% 35.1% 34.7% 34.8% 30.6% 29.2% 33.2% 4. Mastery 5.8% 24.3% 15.6% 27.7% 30.4% 24.9% 27.2% 25.5% 30.5% 27.6% 24.4%

Grade 4 - Reading 1. Entry 15.2% 18.1% 20.7% 20.7% 17.5% 21.2% 21.2% 2. Foundational 15.1% 16.2% 20.0% 20.0% 21.8% 24.6% 26.1% 3. Satisfactory 47.7% 44.3% 37.4% 34.7% 41.1% 38.3% 36.3% 4. Mastery 22.1% 21.4% 21.9% 24.6% 19.6% 15.9% 16.5%Grade 4 - Mathematics 1. Entry 11.5% 13.5% 16.7% 16.9% 14.7% 14.8% 16.0% 2. Foundational 27.3% 26.8% 16.6% 17.9% 17.8% 18.5% 16.1% 3. Satisfactory 35.5% 37.0% 35.5% 35.5% 43.2% 50.1% 46.6% 4. Mastery 25.8% 22.8% 31.2% 29.7% 24.3% 16.6% 21.3%Grade 4 - Science 1. Entry 10.4% 22.4% 26.9% 20.9% 20.6% 23.1% 15.1% 15.3% 11.5% 12.8% 13.0% 2. Foundational 57.7% 32.8% 31.7% 27.0% 28.4% 35.1% 19.3% 17.8% 17.6% 19.1% 21.5% 3. Satisfactory 28.5% 27.5% 25.9% 25.5% 29.3% 26.9% 24.9% 26.1% 30.1% 27.6% 26.4% 4. Mastery 3.4% 17.3% 15.4% 26.7% 21.7% 14.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.5% 39.1%


Grade 6 - Reading 1. Entry 18.0% 20.7% 15.2% 14.1% 11.0% 13.9% 14.3% 2. Foundational 16.5% 15.2% 20.5% 18.2% 20.8% 21.1% 23.2% 3. Satisfactory 39.3% 43.2% 32.9% 35.7% 31.7% 34.4% 36.0% 4. Mastery 26.2% 20.9% 31.4% 32.0% 36.6% 30.6% 26.5%



Grade 6 - Mathematics 1. Entry 11.1% 12.9% 13.3% 13.7% 11.3% 11.9% 11.2% 2. Foundational 24.9% 30.7% 16.7% 15.2% 13.6% 14.7% 14.8% 3. Satisfactory 36.4% 35.4% 34.8% 32.8% 31.2% 36.3% 36.6% 4. Mastery 27.5% 21.0% 35.3% 38.3% 44.0% 37.1% 37.4%

Grade 7 - Reading 1. Entry 19.8% 20.6% 15.5% 15.1% 15.6% 15.1% 14.0% 2. Foundational 13.6% 15.5% 23.5% 19.6% 15.4% 20.5% 20.9% 3. Satisfactory 44.7% 43.3% 33.7% 41.5% 36.3% 39.3% 38.8% 4. Mastery 21.9% 20.6% 27.3% 23.9% 32.7% 25.0% 26.3%Grade 7 - Mathematics 1. Entry 13.0% 14.6% 16.0% 15.5% 14.5% 15.2% 14.2% 2. Foundational 26.1% 27.4% 15.5% 14.5% 13.4% 11.9% 12.0% 3. Satisfactory 36.0% 38.3% 38.3% 41.3% 40.0% 45.5% 43.0% 4. Mastery 25.0% 19.7% 30.2% 28.6% 32.1% 27.4% 30.8%Grade 7 - Science 1. Entry 11.7% 24.0% 28.0% 26.0% 22.3% 21.7% 11.4% 11.3% 10.0% 8.3% 8.1% 2. Foundational 60.0% 32.8% 33.8% 25.0% 30.0% 33.3% 17.4% 16.6% 13.4% 15.7% 16.8% 3. Satisfactory 26.7% 29.0% 24.7% 20.9% 27.0% 29.8% 31.3% 28.6% 28.2% 28.8% 32.2% 4. Mastery 1.5% 14.1% 13.5% 28.0% 20.6% 15.2% 39.9% 43.5% 48.4% 47.2% 42.9%


Grade 11 - Reading 1. Entry 12.6% 32.7% 27.0% 36.6% 21.4% 21.8% 11.8% 13.1% 11.7% 12.6% 13.0% 2. Foundational 55.8% 22.6% 17.7% 14.2% 11.7% 13.2% 16.1% 17.4% 17.5% 19.2% 15.7% 3. Satisfactory 28.0% 30.7% 32.7% 27.3% 42.2% 39.7% 26.4% 30.8% 34.6% 39.4% 54.0% 4. Mastery 3.6% 14.0% 22.6% 21.9% 24.7% 25.3% 45.7% 38.8% 36.2% 28.8% 17.3%Grade 11 - Mathematics 1. Entry 13.1% 30.1% 29.4% 27.3% 13.9% 16.2% 14.4% 15.8% 13.7% 14.2% 14.0% 2. Foundational 54.1% 31.0% 25.9% 31.6% 23.8% 26.3% 13.8% 13.9% 12.9% 13.7% 11.9% 3. Satisfactory 30.8% 25.0% 29.3% 23.4% 36.5% 33.1% 40.6% 43.7% 45.4% 49.8% 50.2% 4. Mastery 2.0% 13.9% 15.5% 17.7% 25.8% 24.4% 31.2% 26.7% 28.0% 22.3% 23.9%Grade 11 - Science 1. Entry 14.6% 31.4% 33.8% 31.8% 19.3% 19.5% 10.5% 11.4% 10.9% 12.8% 13.1% 2. Foundational 56.2% 31.8% 26.7% 34.0% 27.0% 28.3% 12.6% 13.2% 11.8% 12.3% 10.6% 3. Satisfactory 27.6% 24.6% 23.0% 20.9% 28.6% 29.8% 31.3% 28.4% 30.1% 25.4% 24.3% 4. Mastery 1.6% 12.2% 16.5% 13.3% 25.1% 22.4% 45.6% 47.0% 47.1% 49.6% 51.9%



Enrollment as reported by schools/districts during the testing window (grades 3-11 since 2006) 610,328 616,170 618,424 621,620 1,098,045 1,084,882 1,080,912 1,073,392 1,068,202 Reading--Tested Enrollement (Grade 3-8, and 11) 1,075,993 1,072,304 Reading--Percent not tested 2.6% 0.4% 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% Mathematics--Tested Enrollement (Grade 3-8, and 11) 1,077,714 1,073,764 Mathematics--Percent not tested 2.4% 0.5% 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% Science--Tested Enrollement (Grade 4, 7, and 11) 460,543 456,721 Science--Percent not tested 0.8% 0.7%

Federal School Improvement Status Number of Schools 552 562 660 629 573 511 558 721 918 1,240 1,528 Percentage of All Schools 14.1% 14.3% 16.8% 16.2% 14.7% 13.1% 14.3% 18.4% 23.5% 31.8% 39.5%

Federal District Improvement Status Number of Districts 242 240 175 150 158 184 221 302 433 Percentage of All Districts 27.3% 27.3% 20.1% 17.2% 18.2% 21.2% 25.5% 34.8% 50.0%


1

13.718.818.9

19.221.522.422.021.220.9

95.3

2,066,69294.413.12.59.449.00.34.223.618.051.0

State and federal laws require public school districts to release report cards to the public each year.

RACIAL/ETHNIC BACKGROUND AND OTHER INFORMATION

White Black Hispanic AsianAmerican

Indian

PercentLow-

Income

PercentLimited-English-

Proficient

High Sch.Dropout

Rate

ChronicTruancy

RateMobility

RateAttendance

Rate Total

Enrollment

Limited-English-proficient students are those students eligible for transitional bilingual programs.Mobility rate is based on the number of times students enroll in or leave a school during the school year.Chronic truants are students who are absent from school without valid cause for 9 or more of the last 180 school days. Total Enrollment is based on Home School.

Low-income students come from families receiving public aid; live in institutions for neglected or delinquent children; are supported in foster homes with public funds; or are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches.IEP Students are those students eligible to receive special education services.

STAFF-TO-STUDENT RATIOS

AVERAGE CLASS SIZE (as of the first school day in May)

PARENTAL CONTACT*

1 3 6 8 9-12

Pupil-Administrator

Pupil-Certified

Staff

Pupil-Teacher

Secondary

Pupil-Teacher

ElementaryPercent

K

* Parental contact includes parent-teacher conferences, parental visits to school, school visits to home, telephone conversations, and written correspondence.

205.0

ILLINOISSTATEREPORTCARD

STUDENTS

INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING

8.6

2012

Two or More Races

2.8

7542

21.5 22.4 22.8 21.3

Grades

Starting in 2009, charter school information is included in district statistics.

Percent IEP

13.6

Native Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander

0.1

Grades 3 6 8 3 6 8 3 6 8

Mathematics Science English/Language Arts

61 56 54 31 44 46 143 103 92

TIME DEVOTED TO TEACHING CORE SUBJECTS (Minutes Per Day)

Social Science

3 6 8

30 43 44

Asian

TotalNumberFemale Male

American IndianHispanicBlackWhite

TEACHER INFORMATION (Full-Time Equivalents)

83.3 7.1 5.3 1.3 0.2 23.1 76.9 127,830

Two or More Races Unknown

0.8 2.00.1

Native Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander


2

% of Teachers withEmergency or

ProvisionalCredentials

% ofTeachers

with Master's & Above

% ofTeachers

withBachelor's

Degrees

% ofClasses NotTaught by

Highly QualifiedTeachers

AverageTeaching

Experience(Years)

TEACHER INFORMATION ( Continued )

12.9 37.8 61.7 0.6 0.7

SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCES

All Schools

High Poverty Schools

Low Poverty Schools

12.0

13.1

39.5

29.3

59.7

70.5

1.3

0.2

0.9

0.1

The No Child Left Behind Act requires that information for certain data elements be disaggregated by high- and low-poverty schools. Poverty (low-income) is defined on page 1 of all report cards. High- and low-poverty schools include those in the top and bottom quarters of the poverty distribution of schools in the state.

TEACHER/ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES (Full-Time Equivalents)

Average Teacher Salary Average Administrator Salary

$0

$40,000

$80,000

$120,000

$160,000

$200,000

$66,614

$110,870

EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTION 2010-11 (Percentages)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

48.3

3.3

30.7

17.7

Instruction General Administration

Supporting Services

Other Expenditures


3

REVENUE BY SOURCE 2010-11

Federal Funding

Other State Funding

General State Aid

Other Local Funding

Local Property Taxes

EXPENDITURE BY FUND 2010-11

Capital Projects

Fire Prevention & Safety

Social SecurityMunicipal Retirement/

Tort

Debt Service

Transportation

Operations & Maintenance

Education58.2

5.1

17.1

9.5

10.1

73.7

5.9

3.8

7.4

1.2

2.0

0.8

5.1

Percent Percent

OTHER FINANCIAL INDICATORS

2010-11 OperatingExpenditure

per Pupil

2010-11 InstructionalExpenditure

per Pupil

Instructional expenditure per pupil includes the direct costs of teaching pupils or the interaction between teachers and pupils.Operating expenditure per pupil includes the gross operating cost of a school district excluding summer school, adult education, bond principal retired, and capital expenditures.

$6,824 $11,664

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

ACT ASSESSMENT: GRADUATING CLASS OF 2012*

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

20.6 20.1 20.9 20.5 20.6

Composite English Mathematics Reading Science

* Includes graduating students' most recent ACT Assessment scores from an ACT national test date or PSAE testing. Excludes the scores of students who took the test with special accommodations. State averages for ACT data are based on regular public schools and do not include private and special purpose schools.

The number and percent of students taking the ACT are no longer reported since virtually every eleventh grade student takes the ACT as part of the PSAE.

HIGH SCHOOL 4-YEAR GRADUATION RATE

All Male Female

Gender


Indian LEP

Studentswith

Disabilities

Econo-mically Disad-

vantaged

Race / Ethnicity

Migrant

82.3 79.0 85.8 88.9 68.4 76.0 93.0 66.4 69.2 68.9 72.878.8

Two or More Races

83.386.9

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

HIGH SCHOOL 5-YEAR GRADUATION RATE

All Male Female

Gender


Indian LEP

Studentswith

Disabilities

Econo-mically Disad-

vantaged

Race / Ethnicity

Migrant

Two or More Races


84.0 81.1 87.1 89.3 72.2 78.8 92.8 94.5 83.7 83.9 73.0 56.8 72.5 76.7


4

NAEP is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and administered to students in grade 4, 8, and 12. Only grade 4 and 8 results are required to be reported.

Achievement levels reflect what students should know and be able to do. Based on recommendations from policymakers, educators, and members of the general public, the Governing Board sets specific achievement levels for each subject area and grade. To provide a context for interpreting student performance, NAEP results are reported as percentages of students performing below the Basic level, at or above the Basic and Proficient levels, and at the Advanced level.

Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at a given grade.

Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter.

Advanced represents superior performance.

The four achievement levels (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced) are reported as level 1 through level 4, respectively.

2011 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP)

Grade 4 - AllMathematicsReading

43214321Levels

Grade 4

34.7 32.0 24.7 8.6 20.2 41.5 31.4 6.9

White

LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading

Grade 4 - Racial/Ethnic Background

Black

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

21.8 33.6 32.2 12.3 10.2 38.4 41.6 9.9

57.7 29.9 10.9 1.6 41.8 43.9 12.8 1.5

51.2 30.7 15.7 2.4 29.6 50.5 18.5 1.4

16.1 31.3 35.5 17.1 5.9 29.4 44.8 19.8


Grade 4 - Limited-English-ProficientReading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Mathematics

Levels77.4 18.1 4.2 0.0 46.4 41.6 11.3 0.8

Grade 4 - Students with Disabilities

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

67.6 19.4 11.0 2.0 43.2 37.6 17.5 1.6

Grade 4 - Economically Disadvantaged

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

52.0 31.6 14.3 2.1 33.1 47.2 18.1 1.5

Grade 4NAEP PARTICIPATION RATES Reading Mathematics

Limited English Proficient Students

Student with Disabilities

92.4 93.5

91.1 86.1Plenary Packet - Page 156-4

5


43214321Levels

Grade 8

23.2 43.0 30.3 3.6 26.9 40.2 24.7 8.1

White

LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading


Black

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

15.3 41.2 38.8 4.7 15.7 40.2 32.8 11.2

38.0 46.6 14.4 1.0 51.7 38.4 9.4 0.5

30.6 45.9 21.9 1.6 35.8 45.1 16.4 2.7

11.3 34.3 43.1 11.3 7.5 24.0 36.8 31.7




Levels67.9 29.9 2.2 0.0 69.5 27.0 3.2 0.0


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

63.6 28.5 7.5 0.0 63.6 26.8 7.8 1.7


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

34.4 47.0 17.8 0.9 39.3 43.7 15.0 2.1

Grade 8NAEP PARTICIPATION RATES Reading Mathematics

Limited English Proficient Students

Student with Disabilities

91.2 89.9

90.2 84.6


6

These charts present the overall percentages of state test scores categorized as meeting or exceeding the Illinois Learning Standards for the state. They represent performance in reading, mathematics and science.

OVERALL STUDENT PERFORMANCE

0

20

40

60

80

100

76.5 76.782.0 82.1

50.5 51.3

66.2 66.3

OVERALL PERFORMANCE - ALL STATE TESTS

All State Tests ISAT PSAE IAA

2010-11

2011-12

These charts provide information on attainment of the Illinois Learning Standards. They show the percents of student scores meeting or exceeding Standards for the grades and subjects tested on ISAT.

ILLINOIS STANDARDS ACHIEVEMENT TEST (ISAT) PERFORMANCE

ISAT Grade 3

Reading Mathematics

0

20

40

60

80

100

74.7 76.1

87.3 87.7

2010-11

2011-12

0

20

40

60

80

100

74.7 76.0

87.7 88.179.3 79.8

ISAT Grade 4

Reading

2010-11

2011-12

Mathematics Science


7

0

20

40

60

80

100

76.4 77.884.0 83.6

ISAT Grade 5

MathematicsReading

2011-12

2010-11

0

20

40

60

80

100

84.1 81.7 84.0 85.0

ISAT Grade 6

MathematicsReading

2011-12

2010-11

0

20

40

60

80

100

78.8 78.184.3 84.6 81.9 79.9

ISAT Grade 7

Reading

2010-11

2011-12

Mathematics Science

0

20

40

60

80

100

85.0 86.2 86.3 85.0

ISAT Grade 8

MathematicsReading

2010-11

2011-12


8

These charts provide information on attainment of the Illinois Learning Standards. They show the average scores and also the percents of student scores meeting or exceeding standards in reading, mathematics, and science on PSAE.

PRAIRIE STATE ACHIEVEMENT EXAMINATION (PSAE) PERFORMANCE

120

140

160

180

200

156 155 156 156 157 158

MathematicsReading

PRAIRIE STATE ACHIEVEMENT EXAMINATION (PSAE) - Average Scores

Science

2011-12

2010-11

PSAE scores range from 120 to 200.

PRAIRIE STATE ACHIEVEMENT EXAMINATION (PSAE) - Percents Meeting or Exceeding Standards

Reading

0

20

40

60

80

100

51.0 50.7 51.3 51.6 49.2 51.7

ScienceMathematics

Number of students in the State with PSAE scores in 2012: 145,411

2011-12

2010-11


9

These charts provide information on attainment of the Illinois Learning Standards. They show the percents of student scores meeting or exceeding Standards for the grades and subjects tested on IAA.

ILLINOIS ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT (IAA) PERFORMANCE

IAA Grade 3

Reading Mathematics

2010-11

2011-12

0

20

40

60

80

100

50.3 48.656.8 57.6

IAA Grade 4

Reading

2010-11

2011-12

Mathematics Science

0

20

40

60

80

100

54.2 52.8

66.8 67.9 68.1 65.5

IAA Grade 5

Reading Mathematics

2010-11

2011-12

0

20

40

60

80

100

54.9 54.3

63.9 63.4


10

IAA Grade 6

Reading Mathematics

2010-11

2011-12

0

20

40

60

80

100

65.0 62.5

73.4 74.0

IAA Grade 7

Reading

2010-11

2011-12

Mathematics Science

0

20

40

60

80

100

64.3 65.1

72.9 73.8 76.0 75.1

IAA Grade 8

Reading Mathematics

2010-11

2011-12

0

20

40

60

80

100

69.6 69.5 71.8 72.0


11

IAA Grade 11

Reading

2010-11

2011-12

Mathematics Science

0

20

40

60

80

100

68.271.3 72.1 74.1 74.9 76.3


12

PERFORMANCE ON STATE ASSESSMENTS

Federal law requires that student achievement results for reading, mathematics, and science for schools providing Title I services be reported to the general public.

The Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) is administered to students in grades 3 through 8. The Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE) is administered to students in grade 11. The Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA) is administered to students with disabilities whose Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) indicate that participation in the ISAT or PSAE would not be appropriate.

Students with disabilities have an IEP (No Child Left Behind Act). An IEP is a written plan for a child with a disability who is eligible to receive special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Reading and Mathematics are tested in grades 3 through 8 and 11. Science is tested in grades 4, 7, and 11.

In order to protect students' identities, test data for groups of fewer than ten students are not reported.

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS NOT TESTED IN STATE TESTING PROGRAMS FOR READING

*Enrollment

Reading

Racial/Ethnic BackgroundGender

FemaleMale

Two or More Races

American IndianAsianHispanicBlackWhite

Studentswith

DisabilitiesMigrantLEPAll

Econo-micallyDisadv-antaged


* Enrollment as reported during the testing windows for grades 3 - 8 and 11.

1,072,304

0.4

548,690

0.5

523,352

0.3

547,900

0.3

192,977

0.7 0.4

251,440 45,188

0.3

977

0.6

3,177

0.6

29,968

0.4

75,031

0.6

261

2.3

146,113

0.9

531,157

0.5

Number of LEP Students who have attended schools in the U.S. for less than 12 months and are not assessed on the State's reading/language arts test: 1385

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS NOT TESTED IN STATE TESTING PROGRAMS FOR MATHEMATICS

*Enrollment

Mathematics


FemaleMale

Two or More Races


Studentswith




* Enrollment as reported during the testing windows for grades 3 - 8 and 11.

1,073,764

0.4

549,462

0.4

524,040

0.3

548,234

0.3

193,064

0.7

252,013

0.4

45,638

0.2

983

0.5

3,180

0.5

29,975

0.4

76,502

0.3

271

1.1

146,133

0.9

532,214

0.5

* Enrollment as reported during the testing windows for grades 4, 7, and 11.

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS NOT TESTED IN STATE TESTING PROGRAMS FOR SCIENCE

*Enrollment

Science


FemaleMale

Two or More Races


Studentswith



456,721

0.7

232,992

0.8

223,651

0.6

237,912

0.5

81,780

1.4

103,594

0.7

19,211

0.3

1,359

0.9

12,254

0.7

25,859

0.8

107

0.9

61,941

1.6

217,988

1.0


393

1.0


13

ILLINOIS STANDARDS ACHIEVEMENT TEST (ISAT)

The following tables show the percentages of student scores in each of four performance levels. These levels were established with the help of Illinois educators who teach the grade levels and learning areas tested. Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages in the four performance levels may not always equal 100.

Level 1 -- Academic Warning - Student work demonstrates limited knowledge and skills in the subject. Because of major gaps in learning, students apply knowledge and skills ineffectively.

Level 2 -- Below Standards - Student work demonstrates basic knowledge and skills in the subject. However, because of gaps in learning, students apply knowledge and skills in limited ways.

Level 3 -- Meets Standards - Student work demonstrates proficient knowledge and skills in the subject. Students effectively apply knowledge and skills to solve problems.

Level 4 -- Exceeds Standards - Student work demonstrates advanced knowledge and skills in the subject. Students creatively apply knowledge and skills to solve problems and evaluate the results.


43214321Levels 42.5 45.2 9.3 2.9 29.9 46.1 18.7 5.2

Grade 3

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

Grade 3 - Gender

Male 43.5 44.0 9.3 3.2 26.7 46.1 20.8 6.4

Female 41.4 46.6 9.4 2.6 33.3 46.2 16.6 3.9

55.0 39.2 4.6 1.1 39.9 45.9 11.7 2.5White

LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading


Black 9.3 28.3 46.9 15.4 7.1 17.9 53.8 21.2

Hispanic 8.3 28.0 47.6 16.1 3.8 13.8 54.7 27.7

2.0 7.4 36.7 53.9 1.0 3.0 25.1 70.8Asian

American Indian 34.8 51.0 12.3 2.0 26.2 45.1 24.8 3.9

3.7 15.0 46.7 34.6 2.0 7.9 44.0 46.1Two or More Races


3.4 7.4 45.9 43.2 2.0 3.4 37.8 56.8



Levels 17.6 58.3 18.7 5.4 6.1 43.0 38.7 12.3

Grade 3 - Migrant

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels 19.0 52.4 21.4 7.1 7.1 40.5 35.7 16.7


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

45.6 44.8 7.7 1.9 32.7 48.2 16.2 3.0Non-IEPIEP 21.1 37.1 31.6 10.3 9.9 21.0 48.6 20.5


14


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

LevelsFree/Reduced Price Lunch 26.4 54.3 14.5 4.7 15.9 48.5 27.4 8.3

1.7 9.1 43.5 45.7 0.9 3.5 35.1 60.5Not Eligible

Grade 4

Grade 4 - All

Levels 1 2 3 4

Reading Science

2.6 17.6 59.7 20.1

1 2 3 4

1.0 23.0 47.1 28.9

Mathematics

4321

1.2 10.7 57.1 31.0

Female

2.9 17.4 57.4

1 2 3 4Levels

Grade 4 - GenderReading

Male

62.0 17.9 2.3

21 3 4Mathematics

1 2 3 4

1.3 26.7 46.8 25.2 1.5 11.4 56.0 31.1 22.3

0.6 19.2 47.4 32.8 0.9 9.9 58.4 30.8 17.8

Science

Two or More Races

3.3 21.5 14.8

Asian

3.8 24.6 61.8 9.9

Black

1.0 9.6 61.2 28.2


Reading1 2 3 4Levels

White

Hispanic

6.1 33.8 54.1 6.0

American Indian

1.4 7.3 52.6 38.7

1.9 15.1 58.6 24.4

Mathematics Science4321 4321

0.5 14.3 46.9 38.3 6.0 53.6 0.6 39.8

2.0 39.0 45.6 13.5 3.0 20.9 61.8 14.3

1.3 32.3 50.0 16.4 1.4 14.5 64.7 19.4

0.4 9.1 38.2 52.3 0.6 35.9 60.2 3.3

1.0 25.5 51.6 22.0 1.4 10.5 64.2 23.9

0.6 19.4 46.7 33.3 0.8 9.1 55.8 34.3

60.4


0.8 14.4 48.8 36.0 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 0.8 13.4 58.3 27.6

Levels 4321Reading

Grade 4 - Limited-English-ProficientScience

4321

8.8 41.8 47.5 1.9

Mathematics4321

2.8 58.7 35.6 3.0 3.1 27.3 62.6 7.0

Levels 4321Reading

Grade 4 - Migrant

4321Science

10.8 40.5 48.6 0.0

Mathematics4321

5.9 47.1 44.1 2.9 5.4 32.4 56.8 5.4

8.1 49.9 34.4 7.7

Non-IEP


Reading

1 2 3 4Levels

IEP

1.9 15.2 61.1 21.8

Mathematics

4321 4321

Science

5.3 55.8 30.7 8.2 6.1 29.7 53.2 11.0

0.3 18.2 49.5 32.0 0.5 7.9 57.7 33.9

Not Eligible

Grade 4 - Economically DisadvantagedReading

1 2 3 4Levels

Free/Reduced Price Lunch

1

9.4 59.7 26.7 4.3

Science2 3 4

31.6 59.7 7.9 0.8

Mathematics4321

34.2 49.0 15.2 1.6 2.0 16.5 64.2 17.4

0.3 10.9 45.1 43.7 0.4 4.5 45.6 49.5


15

Grade 5

0.2 22.0 47.2 30.6 0.6 15.7 65.9 17.7

Levels 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Reading MathematicsGrade 5 - All

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

Grade 5 - Gender

Male 18.1 64.3 16.8 0.8 26.9 47.4 25.5 0.2

Female 17.2 67.6 14.6 0.5 34.5 47.0 18.4 0.1

24.0 66.6 9.1 0.3 41.0 46.3 12.7 0.1White

LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading


Black 0.4 38.1 48.0 13.5 1.5 30.3 63.1 5.1

Hispanic 0.2 32.5 49.8 17.5 0.8 21.0 69.6 8.6

0.1 9.2 39.1 51.7 0.3 5.3 49.5 44.9Asian

American Indian 11.7 67.2 20.6 0.5 19.6 53.8 26.3 0.2

0.2 16.5 46.9 36.4 0.5 13.1 64.9 21.4Two or More Races


0.0 12.6 50.5 36.9 0.0 9.1 69.1 21.8



Levels 2.0 53.4 42.3 2.3 2.1 28.0 69.2 0.7

Grade 5 - Migrant

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

2.3 68.2 27.3 2.3 12.8 46.2 41.0 0.0


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

19.6 68.3 11.8 0.3 34.0 49.5 16.5 0.1Non-IEPIEP 0.9 60.2 31.5 7.3 3.2 42.7 49.4 4.7


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics


0.1 10.0 44.5 45.5 0.2 7.1 64.2 28.4Not Eligible

Grade 6

MathematicsReading

43214321

Grade 6 - All

0.2 18.1 56.5 25.2 0.4 14.6 58.9 26.0

Levels


16

Female

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsGrade 6 - Gender

Male 0.3 21.2 55.3 23.1 0.5 15.8 56.8 26.9

0.1 14.8 57.8 27.3 0.3 13.4 61.2 25.1

Levels

Two or More Races

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic

White

Mathematics43214321

ReadingGrade 6 - Racial/Ethnic Background

Black

0.1 10.9 55.2 33.7 0.2 8.3 57.2 34.4

0.4 32.3 57.3 10.0 1.0 28.0 61.3 9.7

0.2 24.8 61.0 13.9 0.5 19.7 64.8 15.0

0.1 6.6 45.3 48.0 0.1 4.8 38.6 56.5

0.2 23.4 55.6 20.8 0.8 19.0 59.1 21.2

0.3 14.6 54.3 30.8 0.3 13.1 57.5 29.1

Levels


0.0 9.6 57.4 33.1 0.0 7.3 56.9 35.8

Mathematics43214321

ReadingGrade 6 - Limited-English-Proficient

1.0 63.2 34.6 1.3 1.8 46.4 49.2 2.7

Levels

Mathematics43214321

Reading

Grade 6 - Migrant

2.3 51.2 44.2 2.3 4.4 46.7 48.9 0.0

Levels

Non-IEP

Grade 6 - Students with DisabilitiesReading


IEP 1.2 56.2 37.4 5.2 2.3 45.3 46.6 5.9

0.1 12.6 59.3 28.1 0.1 10.2 60.7 28.9

Levels

Not Eligible


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Free/Reduced Price Lunch 0.3 27.7 59.7 12.3 0.7 22.5 63.8 13.0

0.1 8.1 53.3 38.5 0.1 6.5 53.9 39.5

Levels

Grade 7

Grade 7 - All

1 2 3 4Reading Science

1 2 3 4Mathematics

4321

0.4 21.5 58.0 20.1 1.4 14.0 53.5 31.1 8.6 11.6 54.6 25.3

Levels

Female

1 2 3 4

Grade 7 - Gender

Reading

Male

21 3 4Mathematics

1 2 3 4Science

0.6 25.0 56.9 17.5 1.8 15.6 51.6 31.0 10.0 11.7 51.3 26.9

0.2 17.8 59.3 22.7 1.0 12.3 55.6 31.1 7.0 11.4 58.1 23.5

Levels


17

Two or More Races

Asian

Black


Reading1 2 3 4

White

Hispanic

American Indian


0.2 13.9 58.9 27.0 0.8 9.0 50.8 39.4 4.4 7.1 53.1 35.5

0.9 36.6 54.6 7.9 2.9 25.9 57.1 14.1 17.4 20.4 54.5 7.7

0.5 29.2 59.7 10.7 1.6 17.9 60.7 19.8 12.1 16.1 59.7 12.1

0.2 8.5 53.6 37.7 0.7 3.6 32.0 63.8 3.3 4.6 47.0 45.1

0.0 23.6 60.1 16.2 1.5 16.2 56.0 26.3 9.1 12.7 58.1 20.1

0.2 18.4 57.4 24.0 1.2 12.6 52.3 33.9 7.1 10.5 51.6 30.8

Levels


0.0 17.1 57.7 25.2 0.9 4.5 55.4 39.3 8.0 6.3 59.8 25.9

4321Reading


4321Mathematics

4321

1.9 68.3 29.3 0.4 5.2 40.4 49.9 4.5 34.3 30.3 34.4 1.0

Levels

4321Reading

Grade 7 - Migrant

4321ScienceMathematics

4321

2.4 46.3 46.3 4.9 9.3 20.9 67.4 2.3 25.6 20.9 46.5 7.0

Levels

Non-IEP

Grade 7 - Students with DisabilitiesReading

1 2 3 4

IEP

Mathematics

4321 4321

Science

2.4 61.0 33.3 3.3 7.7 44.0 42.2 6.1 28.6 24.5 40.8 6.1

0.1 15.8 61.6 22.5 0.5 9.7 55.2 34.7 5.7 9.7 56.6 28.0

Levels

Not Eligible


1 2 3 4Levels


1Science

2 3 4Mathematics

4321

0.7 32.2 57.8 9.4 2.2 21.3 59.2 17.2 13.7 17.3 57.4 11.6

0.1 11.1 58.3 30.5 0.6 6.8 47.9 44.6 3.5 6.0 51.9 38.6

Grade 8

0.1 13.6 76.1 10.1 0.3 14.7 52.4 32.6

Levels 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Reading Mathematics

Grade 8 - All

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

Grade 8 - Gender

Male 32.7 50.1 16.8 0.4 8.3 74.3 17.2 0.2

Female 32.5 54.7 12.5 0.2 12.0 78.0 10.0 0.1


18

41.5 48.8 9.4 0.2 13.8 77.0 9.1 0.1White

LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading


Black 0.3 23.6 73.3 2.8 0.7 27.6 58.1 13.7

Hispanic 0.1 17.3 77.6 4.9 0.3 18.1 59.7 21.9

0.0 5.2 70.1 24.7 0.1 4.7 32.0 63.2Asian

American Indian 24.8 53.2 21.0 1.1 7.4 73.4 19.0 0.2

0.1 13.5 74.5 11.9 0.3 14.9 51.0 33.9Two or More Races


0.0 9.6 78.1 12.4 0.6 7.3 50.0 42.1



Levels 5.0 50.0 43.9 1.1 0.2 48.8 50.5 0.5

Grade 8 - Migrant

Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

0.0 56.7 40.0 3.3 0.0 48.3 51.7 0.0


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

36.4 53.9 9.6 0.1 11.4 80.3 8.3 0.0Non-IEPIEP 0.9 50.8 47.2 1.1 2.0 50.6 41.6 5.9


Reading1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics


0.1 7.0 77.0 15.9 0.2 7.5 46.2 46.2Not Eligible

PRAIRIE STATE ACHIEVEMENT EXAMINATION (PSAE)

The following tables show the percentages of student scores in each of four performance levels. These levels were established with the help of Illinois educators who teach the grade levels and learning areas tested. Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages in the four performance levels may not always equal 100.

Level 1 -- Academic Warning - Student work demonstrates limited knowledge and skills in the subject. Because of major gaps in learning, students apply knowledge and skills ineffectively.

Level 2 -- Below Standards - Student work demonstrates basic knowledge and skills in the subject. However, because of gaps in learning, students apply knowledge and skills in limited ways.

Level 3 -- Meets Standards - Student work demonstrates proficient knowledge and skills in the subject. Students effectively apply knowledge and skills to solve problems.

Level 4 -- Exceeds Standards - Student work demonstrates advanced knowledge and skills in the subject. Students creatively apply knowledge and skills to solve problems and evaluate the results.

Grade 11

Grade 11 - All

Levels 1 2 3 4

Reading Science

1 2 3 4

Mathematics

4321

39.4 41.6 9.0 10.7 37.7 42.2 9.4 8.8 39.6 41.1 10.6 9.9Plenary Packet - Page 156-18

19

Female

1 2 3 4Levels

Grade 11 - Gender

Reading

Male

21 3 4Mathematics

1 2 3 4Science

12.2 40.1 39.7 8.0 11.2 35.4 42.2 11.2 9.0 36.2 41.5 13.3

7.6 38.8 43.6 10.0 10.2 40.0 42.3 7.5 8.5 42.9 40.7 7.9

Two or More Races

Asian

Black



White

Hispanic

American Indian


30.6 50.8 12.9 5.6 29.8 51.7 12.9 4.3 29.2 51.3 15.2

19.1 56.6 22.8 1.5 25.4 53.8 20.1 0.8 20.6 60.0 18.4 1.0

14.7 51.9 30.6 2.8 13.9 49.9 33.6 2.6 12.1 54.6 30.4 2.9

6.5 27.3 49.0 17.1 4.0 18.5 48.7 28.8 4.6 22.5 49.2 23.7

10.6 43.4 40.1 5.9 10.4 41.3 43.6 4.7 9.0 48.3 36.6 6.1

7.2 37.1 44.4 11.3 8.7 37.2 43.1 11.0 7.2 36.7 43.2 12.9

5.7


8.5 42.3 37.3 12.0 9.9 34.5 47.2 8.5 9.2 39.4 43.0 8.5

Levels 4321Reading


4321Mathematics

4321

56.6 40.5 2.8 0.1 42.5 46.3 10.4 0.8 42.7 51.5 5.7 0.1

Levels 4321Reading

Grade 11 - Migrant

4321ScienceMathematics

4321

53.8 42.3 3.8 0.0 46.2 50.0 3.8 0.0 30.8 65.4 3.8 0.0

Non-IEP



IEP

Mathematics

4321 4321

Science

41.0 42.7 14.4 2.0 45.7 41.1 11.9 1.3 36.9 48.2 12.6 2.3 5.9 39.0 45.1 9.9 6.2 37.3 46.1 10.4 5.2 38.5 44.7 11.6

Not Eligible


1 2 3 4Levels


1Science2 3 4

Mathematics4321

16.9 52.3 28.4 2.3 18.7 51.1 28.4 1.9 15.8 55.5 26.5 2.3

5.1 30.6 50.7 13.6 5.2 28.6 51.7 14.5 4.0 28.7 51.1 16.3

ILLINOIS ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT (IAA)

The Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA) is administered to students with disabilities whose Individualized Education Programs(IEPs) indicate that participation in the ISAT or PSAE would not be appropriate. The table below presents the percentages of student scores in each of four performance levels.

Level 1 -- Entry - Students do not demonstrate knowledge and skills in the subject through links to the Illinois Learning Standards.

Level 2 --Foundational - Students demonstrate emerging knowledge and skills in the subject as linked to the Illinois Learning Standards. Students exhibit an ability to reproduce knowledge and skills.

Level 3 -- Satisfactory - Students demonstrate basic knowledge and skills in the subject through links to the Illinois Learning Standards. Students exhibit an ability to associate their knowledge and skills.

Level 4 -- Mastery - Students demonstrate knowledge and skills in the subject through links to the Illinois Learning Standards. Students exhibit the ability to apply their knowledge and skills.


20

Grade 3 - All

MathematicsReading43214321Levels

19.3 32.1 37.8 10.8 22.9 19.4 33.2 24.4

Grade 3

25.9 33.4 18.6 22.0 11.0 38.2 31.7 19.1

Female

Reading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

Grade 3 - Gender

Male 21.5 32.8 21.3 24.5 10.3 37.0 33.1 19.6


Reading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

LevelsWhite 25.2 34.9 19.7 20.2 11.3 37.9 33.6 17.1

Black

Hispanic

21.6 29.9 38.1 10.4 25.4 17.8 33.1 23.7

Asian

19.5 31.2 38.9 10.4 23.5 20.4 31.4 24.7

American Indian

27.6 39.5 27.6 5.3 36.8 19.7 27.6 15.8

Two or More Races 18.3 25.0 40.0 16.7 20.0 20.0 28.3 31.7


LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading

Grade 3 - Limited-English-Proficient

8.7 36.4 33.3 21.6 24.9 24.2 32.8 18.1

26.1 33.8 18.1 22.0 12.4 40.1 30.1 17.5

Not Eligible



LevelsFree/Reduced Price Lunch

22.2 32.4 21.2 24.2 8.7 34.6 34.8 21.9

Grade 4

Grade 4 - All

Levels 1 2 3 4

Reading Science

1 2 3 4

Mathematics

4321

21.2 26.1 36.3 16.5 16.0 16.1 46.6 21.3 13.0 21.5 26.4 39.1

Female

1 2 3 4Levels

Grade 4 - Gender

Reading

Male

21 3 4

Mathematics

1 2 3 4

Science

21.6 26.0 35.3 17.1 16.5 15.1 45.8 22.6 13.0 20.8 26.7 39.5

20.3 26.2 38.3 15.2 14.7 18.4 48.5 18.4 12.8 23.1 25.9 38.2

Two or More Races

Asian

Black



White

Hispanic

American Indian


21.4 23.8 38.2 16.6 15.6 17.4 45.2 21.8 11.8 23.2 24.5 40.5

21.9 27.3 32.3 18.5 16.6 16.2 45.6 21.6 14.9 19.7 27.2 38.2

20.5 28.9 35.7 14.9 16.5 14.3 48.2 21.1 13.3 19.4 28.3 39.1

18.8 36.2 39.1 5.8 12.9 15.7 60.0 11.4 11.4 30.0 35.7 22.9

19.2 19.2 38.5 23.1 17.3 7.7 50.0 25.0 15.4 11.5 28.8 44.2



21

Levels 4321Reading


4321Mathematics

4321

18.0 34.2 34.6 13.2 15.4 15.4 51.8 17.5 13.6 17.1 29.8 39.5

Not Eligible


1 2 3 4Levels


1Science

2 3 4Mathematics

4321

17.8 25.8 36.9 19.5 13.7 14.2 47.9 24.1 11.6 18.6 26.6 43.2

25.2 26.5 35.5 12.9 18.7 18.4 45.0 17.8 14.7 24.9 26.2 34.2

Grade 5 - All


22.0 23.7 22.4 31.9 13.7 23.0 44.3 19.1

Grade 5

19.6 43.7 23.4 13.4 31.7 22.9 22.5 22.9

Female

Reading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

Grade 5 - Gender

Male

18.1 45.3 22.3 14.3 32.2 21.5 26.1 20.2


Reading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

White 18.8 47.4 23.1 10.7 35.2 23.5 23.4 17.8

Black

Hispanic

26.1 23.1 20.2 30.6 16.6 21.7 40.1 21.7

Asian

25.7 24.7 19.7 29.9 15.8 24.3 41.3 18.8

American Indian

26.8 26.8 31.0 15.5 16.9 32.4 38.0 12.7

Two or More Races 20.8 26.4 28.3 24.5 17.0 11.3 56.6 15.1


LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading


29.9 22.1 29.9 18.2 13.5 23.9 43.5 19.1

21.9 45.9 20.5 11.7 34.5 22.9 22.8 19.9

Not Eligible



LevelsFree/Reduced Price Lunch

15.1 41.9 26.5 16.4 28.2 21.7 25.1 25.1

Grade 6 - All


Grade 6

14.3 23.2 36.0 26.5 11.2 14.8 36.6 37.4


22

Female

Reading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

Grade 6 - Gender

Male 13.5 23.2 36.2 27.0 10.5 14.3 36.7 38.5

16.1 22.9 35.5 25.4 12.8 15.8 36.1 35.3


Reading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

MathematicsLevels

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

Two or More Races

13.9 22.3 36.0 27.8 9.9 14.0 37.0 39.1

14.9 21.8 34.2 29.0 13.3 12.1 36.6 38.1

13.7 25.6 38.3 22.4 12.1 16.7 36.1 35.0

18.5 33.3 33.3 14.8 13.6 25.9 35.8 24.7

29.8 15.8 15.8 38.6 10.5 17.5 31.6 40.4


LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading


12.8 24.4 38.3 24.4 8.3 15.6 37.8 38.3

Not Eligible




16.9 26.3 36.6 20.3 13.7 16.4 38.4 31.5

Grade 7

Grade 7 - All

Levels 1 2 3 4Reading Science

1 2 3 4Mathematics

4321

14.0 20.9 38.8 26.3 14.2 12.0 43.0 30.8 8.1 16.8 32.2 42.9

Female

1 2 3 4Levels

Grade 7 - Gender

Reading

Male

21 3 4Mathematics

1 2 3 4Science

14.5 21.4 39.1 24.9 14.1 12.1 42.1 31.7 8.3 17.5 31.4 42.7

13.1 19.8 38.3 28.8 14.2 11.9 44.7 29.2 7.7 15.5 33.6 43.3

Two or More Races

Asian

Black



White

Hispanic

American Indian


13.2 20.7 38.0 28.0 12.5 13.3 42.8 31.4 6.9 17.7 30.8 44.6

14.7 19.2 40.2 25.9 15.1 11.7 40.9 32.3 8.9 15.1 33.2 42.8

14.4 23.7 38.3 23.7 16.2 10.3 46.5 27.0 37.4 9.3 17.5 35.8

17.9 26.8 32.1 23.2 16.1 5.4 46.4 32.1 12.5 10.7 33.9 42.9

14.6 7.3 53.7 24.4 14.6 12.2 36.6 36.6 4.8 19.0 16.7 59.5



23

Levels 4321

Reading

Grade 7- Limited-English-Proficient

Science4321

Mathematics4321

15.3 22.6 41.1 21.1 15.8 8.9 47.9 27.4 11.6 14.3 43.9 30.2

Not Eligible


Reading

1 2 3 4Levels


1

Science

2 3 4

Mathematics

4321 10.5 19.6 40.5 29.5 10.6 10.5 45.4 33.6 6.1 13.4 33.4 47.1

18.4 22.4 36.8 22.3 18.6 13.9 40.0 10.5 21.0 30.7 37.8 27.5

Grade 8 - All


14.6 15.8 39.0 30.5 10.5 17.5 37.4 34.6

Grade 8

37.2 35.7 17.4 9.7 31.2 39.0 16.1 13.7

Female

Reading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

Levels

Grade 8 - Gender

Male 29.7 40.7 17.7 11.9 29.1 39.0 15.4 16.5


Reading

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Mathematics

LevelsWhite 37.2 37.0 16.5 9.3 32.0 39.7 14.0 14.2

BlackHispanic

14.1 16.3 40.4 29.3 10.6 17.6 38.6 33.2

Asian

14.5 19.2 37.8 28.5 11.0 20.8 36.2 32.1

American Indian

23.8 25.4 28.6 22.2 22.2 17.5 36.5 23.8

Two or More Races 17.1 7.3 39.0 36.6 9.8 12.2 43.9 34.1


LevelsMathematics

43214321Reading


24.6 35.0 23.0 17.5 12.6 23.6 34.1 29.7

37.8 37.5 16.1 8.6 32.2 40.9 15.5 11.4

Not Eligible



Levels


30.6 37.3 19.3 12.8 28.4 36.7 16.2 18.7

Grade 11

Grade 11 - All

Levels 1 2 3 4

Reading Science

1 2 3 4

Mathematics

4321

13.0 15.7 54.0 17.3 14.0 11.9 50.2 23.9 13.1 10.6 24.3 51.9


24

Female

1 2 3 4Levels

Grade 11 - Gender

Reading

Male

21 3 4Mathematics

1 2 3 4Science

13.7 16.5 53.0 16.8 14.4 11.9 49.8 23.9 12.9 10.6 23.9 52.6

11.4 14.6 56.3 17.6 12.9 12.0 51.0 24.1 12.9 10.4 25.2 51.4

Two or More Races

Asian

Black



White

Hispanic

American Indian


10.9 16.3 54.1 18.6 11.6 12.7 49.1 26.7 10.8 10.8 24.3 54.1

14.7 14.7 53.6 17.0 16.1 10.7 52.3 20.8 15.6 9.0 24.1 51.3

15.9 13.5 59.0 11.6 16.7 11.1 50.7 21.6 14.0 11.6 25.9 48.5

10.5 26.3 46.1 17.1 10.5 13.2 55.3 21.1 11.8 14.5 30.3 43.4

9.5 16.7 40.5 33.3 14.3 14.3 45.2 26.2 14.6 9.8 14.6 61.0


Levels 4321Reading


4321Mathematics

4321

12.1 21.2 56.8 9.8 20.5 10.6 52.3 16.7 14.4 16.7 32.6 36.4

Not Eligible




1Science

2 3 4Mathematics

4321

11.1 13.1 58.2 17.6 12.1 10.7 52.7 24.5 10.8 8.7 24.6 55.9

15.2 18.6 49.4 16.9 16.0 13.2 47.4 23.3 15.6 12.8 23.9 47.6


25

Is the state making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)?

Is the state making AYP in Mathematics?

Is the state making AYP in Reading?

LEP

Students with Disabilities

Economically Disadvantaged

82.091.085.085.095.095.0

Two or More Races

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Black

White

All

State AYP Minimum Target

Met AYP

Other IndicatorsPercent Tested on State Tests

Percent Meeting/Exceeding Standards *

Attendance Rate5-YEAR

Graduation RateReading Reading MathematicsMathematics

Met AYP

Met AYP

Met AYP

Met AYP

Met AYP %

%%%%%Safe

Harbor Target **

Safe Harbor Target **

2012 ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) STATUS REPORT - STATE

* The Full Academic Year provision does not apply at the state level.

** Safe Harbor Targets of 85% or above are not printed.

***Subgroups with fewer than 45 students are not reported. Safe Harbor only applies to subgroups of 45 or more. In order for Safe Harbor to apply, a subgroup must decrease by 10% the percentage of scores that did not meet standards from the previous year plus meet the other indicators (attendance rate for non-high schools and graduation rate for high schools) for the subgroup. For subgroups that do not meet their Safe Harbor Targets, a 75% confidence interval is applied. Safe Harbor allows schools an alternate method to meet subgroup minimum targets on achievement.

Four Conditions Are Required For Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):

1. At least 95% tested in reading and mathematics for every student group. If the current year participation rate is less than 95%, this condition may be met if the average of the current and preceding year rates is at least 95%, or if the average of the current and two preceding years is at least 95%. Only actual participation rates are printed. If the participation rate printed is less than 95% and yet this school makes AYP, it means that the 95% condition was met by averaging.

2. At least 85% meeting/exceeding standards in reading and mathematics for every group. For any group with less than 85% meeting/exceeding standards, a 95% confidence interval was applied. Subgroups may meet this condition through Safe Harbor provisions.***

3. At least 91% attendance rate and at least 82% graduation rate.

No

No

No

99.6 99.6Yes Yes

99.7 99.7Yes Yes

99.3 99.3Yes Yes

99.6 99.6Yes Yes

99.7 99.8Yes Yes

99.4 99.5Yes Yes

99.6 99.6Yes Yes

99.4 99.7Yes Yes

99.1 99.1Yes Yes

99.5 99.5Yes Yes

75.2 80.9No No

83.6 87.5No Yes

59.5 65.3 63.5 68.5No No

66.2 75.8 69.0 78.0 95.7 78.8

94.1 72.2

No No

88.0 92.9Yes Yes

71.5 77.4 72.1 78.7 95.0 83.7Yes No

79.6 83.6 81.2 95.0 83.9No No

51.1 69.8 54.4 71.9 95.8 73.0No No

40.2 52.2 46.6 57.4 94.3 72.5No No

64.4 72.6 67.4 75.1 94.7 76.7No No

94.4 Yes 84.0 Yes

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander

94.5 95.9Yes 87.1Yes82.5 81.8Yes 99.5Yes 99.4


26

FEDERAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STATUS

Below is a list of the Title I funded schools in the State that are in Federal School Improvement Status as defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Out of 3,873 schools statewide, 2,553 are Title I schools of which 1,528 schools or 39.5 percent (of all the schools) are in Federal School Improvement Status.

Years in School Improvement

School NameSchool IDDistrict Name

Addison SD 4

190220040021009 Indian Trail Jr High School 2

190220040022002 Army Trail Elem School 4

190220040022003 Fullerton Elem School 3

190220040022004 Lake Park Elem School 2

190220040022005 Lincoln Elem School 2

Allen-Otter Creek CCSD 65

350500650042001 Ransom Grade School 1

Alsip-Hazlgrn-Oaklwn SD 126

070161260022001 Hazelgreen Elem School 1

070161260022002 Lane Elem School 1

070161260022004 Stony Creek Elem School 1

Alton CUSD 11

410570110260001 Alton High School 3

410570110261006 Alton Middle School 5

410570110262007 Eunice Smith Elem School 2

410570110262010 Gilson Brown Elem School 1

410570110262015 Lewis & Clark Elem School 2

410570110262024 Lovejoy Elem School 3

410570110262028 West Elementary School 2

410570110262029 East Elementary School 3

410570110262030 North Elementary School 3

Anna CCSD 37


Anna Jonesboro CHSD 81

020910810160001 Anna-Jonesboro High School 5

Arbor Park SD 145

070161450022003 Scarlet Oak Elem School 4

Arcola CUSD 306

110213060262002 Arcola Elementary School 3

Argenta-Oreana CUSD 1

390550010262002 Argenta-Oreana Elementary School 1

Argo CHSD 217

070162170160001 Argo Community High School 5

Armstrong Twp HSD 225

540922250170001 Armstrong High School 5

Arthur CUSD 305

110213050260001 Arthur Sr High School 2

Astoria CUSD 1 Plenary Packet - Page 156-26

27

220290010262001 Astoria Elem School 1

Atwood Heights SD 125

070161250021001 Hamlin Upper Grade Center 1

070161250022003 Lawn Manor School 1

070161250022004 Meadow Lane School 1

Aurora East USD 131

310451310220001 East High School 10

310451310221002 C F Simmons Middle School 12

310451310221003 K D Waldo Middle School 12

310451310221004 Henry W Cowherd Middle School 12

310451310222004 Olney C Allen Elem School 5

310451310222005 C M Bardwell Elem School 5

310451310222006 W S Beaupre Elem School 4

310451310222007 L D Brady Elem School 4

310451310222008 G N Dieterich Elem School 4

310451310222009 John Gates Elem School 4

310451310222010 Nicholas A Hermes Elem School 4

310451310222011 C I Johnson Elem School 4

310451310222012 Rose E Krug Elem School 3

310451310222013 Oak Park Elem School 4

310451310222014 Mabel O Donnell Elem School 4

310451310222015 Edna Rollins Elem School 4

Aurora West USD 129

310451290222005 Freeman Elem School 1

310451290222007 Greenman Elem School 4

310451290222008 Hall Elem School 4

310451290222009 Hill Elem School 4

310451290222011 McCleery Elem School 3

310451290222012 Nicholson Elem School 3

310451290222014 Schneider Elem School 3

310451290222015 Smith Elem School 4

Avon CUSD 176

220291760262003 Avon Grade School 2

Barrington CUSD 220

340492200260004 Barrington High School 1

340492200261004 Barrington Mdle Sch- Prairie Cmps 1

340492200262003 Sunny Hill Elem School 4

Bartonville SD 66

480720660022001 Bartonville Elem School 1

Batavia USD 101

310451010221002 Sam Rotolo Middle Sch 2

Beach Park CCSD 3

340490030041006 Beach Park Middle School 3

340490030042002 Oak Crest School 3

340490030042004 Howe Elementary School 2

340490030042005 Newport Elem School 1

340490030042006 Kenneth Murphy School 2

Beardstown CUSD 15

460090150262002 Brick Elementary School 3

460090150262003 Gard Elementary School 4

Belle Valley SD 119Plenary Packet - Page 156-27

28

500821190022001 Belle Valley Elem School-North 2

Belleville SD 118

500821180022001 Abraham Lincoln Elem School 2

500821180022006 Henry Raab Elem School 1

Belleville Twp HSD 201

500822010170001 Belleville High School-East 4

500822010170002 Belleville High School-West 5

Bellwood SD 88

060160880021007 Roosevelt Middle School 3

060160880022001 Grant Elem School 4

060160880022003 Lincoln Elementary School 3

060160880022005 McKinley Elem School 3

060160880022006 Thurgood Marshall Elem School 2

Belvidere CUSD 100


040041000262008 Washington Academy 4

040041000262009 Meehan Elementary School 1

Bement CUSD 5

390740050262001 Bement Elementary School 1

Benton CCSD 47

210280470041002 Benton Grade Sch 5-8 4

210280470042001 Benton Grade Sch K-4 4

Benton Cons HSD 103

210281030130001 Benton Cons High School 4

Berkeley SD 87

060160870021005 MacArthur Middle School 2

060160870021006 Northlake Middle School 1

060160870022003 Jefferson Elementary School 2

060160870022007 J W Riley Elem School 4

060160870022008 Sunnyside Elementary School 2

060160870022010 Whittier Elementary School 1

Berwyn North SD 98

060160980021004 Lincoln Middle School 6

060160980022001 Prairie Oak School 4

060160980022002 Karel Havlicek Elem School 4

060160980022003 Jefferson Elem School 1

Berwyn South SD 100

060161000021002 Heritage Middle School 4

060161000021003 Freedom Middle School 4

060161000022004 Komensky Elem School 2

060161000022006 Pershing Elem School 4

Bethalto CUSD 8

410570080261002 Wilbur Trimpe Middle School 1

410570080262007 Meadowbrook Intermediate Sch 1

Bethel SD 82

250410820022001 Bethel Grade School 1

Bloom Twp HSD 206

070162060170001 Bloom High School 10

070162060170002 Bloom Trail High School 10Plenary Packet - Page 156-28

29

Bloomington SD 87

170640870252003 Bent Elem School 2

170640870252006 Irving Elementary School 2

170640870252011 Sheridan Elem School 2

Bond County CUSD 2

030030020262003 Greenville Elem School 3

Bourbonnais SD 53

320460530022002 Shabbona Elem School 1

Braceville SD 75

240320750022001 Braceville Elem School 1

Bradley Bourbonnais CHSD 307

320463070160001 Bradley-Bourbonnais C High School 4

Bradley SD 61

320460610022002 Bradley East Elem School 3

Bremen CHSD 228

070162280160003 Hillcrest High School 10

Brooklyn UD 188

500821880220001 Lovejoy Technology Academy 10

500821880221001 Lovejoy Middle School 12

500821880222001 Lovejoy Elementary School 4

Brookwood SD 167

070161670021002 Brookwood Jr High School 1

070161670022001 Brookwood Middle School 3

070161670022003 Longwood Elem School 2

Brown County CUSD 1

460050010262002 Brown County Elementary School 1

Buncombe Cons SD 43

020440430032001 Buncombe Cons School 1

Burbank SD 111

070161110021001 Liberty Junior High School 2

070161110022002 Richard Byrd Elementary School 1

070161110022006 Maddock Elementary School 2

070161110022010 Edward J Tobin Elem School 1

070161110022011 Harry E Fry School 1

Bureau Valley CUSD 340

280063400261001 Bureau Valley South 2

Burnham SD 154-5

070161545022001 Burnham Elem School 3

Bushnell Prairie City CUSD 170

260621700260001 Bushnell-Prairie City High Sch 4

260621700261002 Bushnell-Prairie City Jr High Sch 1

260621700262003 Bushnell-Prairie City Elem Sch 2

Cahokia CUSD 187

500821870260011 Cahokia High School 8

500821870262002 Centerville Elem School 4

500821870262005 Huffman Elem School 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-29

30

500821870262007 Lalumier Elem School 2

500821870262008 Maplewood Elem School 2

500821870262009 Elizabeth Morris Elem School 2

500821870262010 Penniman Elem School 2

500821870262014 Cahokia School of Choice 1

Cairo USD 1

020020010220001 Cairo Jr/Sr High School 10

020020010222004 Cairo Elementary School 2

Calumet City SD 155

070161550021001 Wentworth Jr High School 12

070161550022002 Wilson Elementary School 2

070161550022004 Wentworth Intermediate School 4

Calumet Public SD 132

070161320022001 Burr Oak Elem School 7

070161320022002 Calumet Elem School 4

070161320022003 Burr Oak Academy 5

Cambridge CUSD 227

280372270260002 Cambridge Jr/Sr High School 1

Canton Union SD 66

220290660251002 Ingersoll Middle School 2

Carbon Cliff-Barstow SD 36

490810360022002 Eagle Ridge School 3

Carbondale CHSD 165

300391650160001 Carbondale Comm H S 9

Carbondale ESD 95

300390950021004 Carbondale Middle School 9

300390950022003 Thomas Elementary School 2

300390950022008 Lewis School 2

Carmi-White County CUSD 5

200970050262007 Crossville Attendance Center 2

Carrier Mills-Stonefort CUSD 2

200830020262002 Carrier Mills-Stonefort Elem Sch 4

Carrollton CUSD 1

400310010260003 Carrollton High School 2

Carterville CUSD 5

211000050262001 Tri-C Elementary K-4 Grade School 2

Carthage ESD 317

260343170042005 Carthage Primary School 1

Cary CCSD 26

440630260042004 Three Oaks School 1

Catlin CUSD 5

540920050262001 Catlin Elem School 1

CCSD 168

070161680041003 Rickover Jr High School 3

070161680042001 Strassburg Elem 3

070161680042002 Wagoner Elem 5Plenary Packet - Page 156-30

31

CCSD 180

190221800041001 Burr Ridge Middle School 2

190221800042002 Anne M Jeans Elem School 2

CCSD 62

050160620041001 Algonquin Middle School 2


050160620042009 Orchard Place Elem School 2

050160620042010 Plainfield Elem School 1

050160620042011 South Elem School 4

CCSD 93

190220930042007 Elsie C Johnson Elem Sch 2

Central CHSD 71

130140710160001 Central Comm High School 3

Central CUSD 3

010010030261001 Central Junior High School 1

010010030262008 Central 3-4 Middle School 2

Centralia HSD 200

130582000170001 Centralia High School 9

Century CUSD 100

020771000262004 Century Elementary School 2

Champaign CUSD 4

090100040262008 Carrie Busey Elem School 2

090100040262010 Dr Howard Elem School 3

090100040262011 Garden Hills Elem School 2

090100040262013 Kenwood Elem School 1

090100040262017 Robeson Elem School 2

090100040262020 Washington Elem School 4

090100040262021 Westview Elem School 2

090100040262026 Stratton Elementary School 3

Chaney-Monge SD 88

560990880021002 Monge Jr High School 1

560990880022002 Chaney Elementary School 3

Charleston CUSD 1


Chester CUSD 139

450791390262002 Chester Elem School 5

Chicago Heights SD 170

070161700022001 Washington-McKinley Elem Sch 5

070161700022002 Roosevelt Elem School 3

070161700022005 Wilson Elem School 12

070161700022007 Garfield Elem School 3

070161700022008 U S Grant Elem School 2


070161700022012 Kennedy Elem School 2


Chicago Ridge SD 127-5

070161275021001 Elden D Finley Jr High School 2

070161275022003 Ridge Central Elem School 1

070161275022004 Ridge Lawn Elementary School 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-31

32

Christopher USD 99

210280990260001 Christopher High 1

210280990261001 Christopher Jr High School 2

210280990262001 Christopher Elem School 2

CHSD 117

340491170160001 Antioch Comm High School 4

340491170160002 Lakes Community High School 3

CHSD 128

340491280160004 Vernon Hills High School 1

CHSD 218

070162180160001 DD Eisenhower High Sch (Campus) 10

070162180160004 H L Richards High Sch(Campus) 1

070162180160007 A B Shepard High Sch (Campus) 1

CHSD 94

190220940160001 Community High School 5

CHSD 99

190220990160001 Comm H S Dist 99 - North H S 1

190220990160002 Comm H S Dist 99 - South High Sch 1

Cicero SD 99

060160990021002 Unity Jr High School 6

060160990022001 Daniel Burnham Elem School 12

060160990022002 Cicero East Elem School 12

060160990022003 Columbus East Elem School 4

060160990022004 Drexel Elem School 7

060160990022005 Goodwin Elementary School 4

060160990022006 Abe Lincoln Elem School 4

060160990022008 T Roosevelt Elem School 12

060160990022009 Sherlock Elem School 1

060160990022010 Woodrow Wilson Elem School 4

060160990022011 Woodbine Elem School 3

060160990022012 Warren Park School 2

060160990022013 Liberty Elem School 12

060160990022014 Cicero West Elementary School 12

060160990022015 Columbus West Elementary School 12

City of Chicago SD 299

150162990250001 Amundsen High School 10

150162990250003 Bogan High School 7

150162990250006 Carver Military Academy HS 13

150162990250008 Crane Technical Prep High School 13

150162990250011 Farragut Career Academy HS 13

150162990250012 Fenger Academy High School 10

150162990250013 Foreman High School 10

150162990250015 Gage Park High School 10

150162990250016 Harlan Community Academy HS 10

150162990250017 Harper High School 13

150162990250019 Hirsch Metropolitan High School 10

150162990250020 Hubbard High School 10

150162990250021 Hyde Park Academy High School 10

150162990250022 Kelly High School 10

150162990250023 Kelvyn Park High School 10

150162990250024 Kennedy High School 7

150162990250025 Kenwood Academy High School 3Plenary Packet - Page 156-32

33

150162990250026 Lake View High School 10

150162990250029 Marshall Metropolitan High School 13

150162990250030 Mather High School 7

150162990250031 Morgan Park High School 2

150162990250034 Phillips Academy High School 10

150162990250035 Roosevelt High School 7

150162990250036 Schurz High School 10

150162990250037 Senn High School 10

150162990250039 King College Prep High School 3

15016299025003C Perspectives Charter High School 4

150162990250041 Steinmetz Academic Centre HS 7

150162990250042 Sullivan High School 10

150162990250044 Tilden Career Communty Academy HS 13

150162990250046 Von Steuben Metro Science HS 2

150162990250048 Washington G High School 7

150162990250049 Wells Community Academy HS 13

15016299025004C Youth Connections Charter HS 10

15016299025005C North Lawndale Charter HS 10

15016299025006C Noble Street Charter High School 5

15016299025007C Young Womens Leadership Chartr HS 6

15016299025008C Aspira Charter High School 6

15016299025009C ACE Technical Charter High School 5

15016299025010C Urban Prep Chtr Acad Englewood HS 3

15016299025011C Ford Power House Charter HS 1

150162990250526 Chicago Vocational Career Acad HS 10

150162990250531 Dunbar Vocational Career Acad HS 7

150162990250534 Prosser Career Academy HS 10

150162990250536 Richards Career Academy HS 13

150162990250537 Simeon Career Academy High School 10

150162990250543 Corliss High School 9

150162990250545 Clemente Community Academy HS 10

150162990250616 Manley Career Academy High School 13

150162990250617 Curie Metropolitan High School 10

150162990250763 Julian High School 10

150162990250766 Robeson High School 10

150162990250767 Juarez Community Academy HS 10

150162990250779 Hancock College Preparatory HS 10

150162990250788 Brooks College Prep Academy HS 3

150162990250795 Chicago Military Academy HS 6

150162990250798 Dyett High School 9

150162990250799 Hope College Prep High School 7

150162990250803 Phoenix Military Academy HS 8

150162990250806 School of Leadership High School 7

150162990250816 Chicago Voc Achievement Acad HS 2

150162990250818 Spry Community Links High School 3

150162990250820 Chicago Academy High School 5

150162990250824 New Millenium Health High School 5

150162990250825 North-Grand High School 5

150162990250826 Raby High School 5

150162990250827 Clark Acad Prep Magnet High Schl 4

150162990250828 Rickover Naval Academy High Schl 4

150162990250829 Uplift Community High School 5

150162990250830 World Language High School 4

150162990250831 Douglass Academy High School 5

150162990250834 Bronzeville Scholastic HS 4

150162990250835 School of Social Justice HS 4

150162990250836 Multicultural Acad of Scholarshp 4

150162990250837 Infinity Math Science & Tech HS 4Plenary Packet - Page 156-33

34

150162990250839 Austin Bus & Entrepreneurship HS 3

150162990250840 Austin Polytechnical Academy HS 2

150162990250841 Collins Academy High School 2

150162990250842 Marine Military Academy HS 2

150162990250843 Team Englewood Comm Acad HS 2

150162990250844 VOISE Academy High School 1

150162990250847 Orr Academy High School 2

150162990250856 Williams Medical Prep High Sch 1

15016299025201C Chicago International Charter 10

15016299025203C Shabazz International Chrtr Schls 3

150162990252046 Jackson M Elem School 12

150162990252047 Morgan Elem School 12

150162990252048 Green W Elem School 2

15016299025204C Univ of Chicago Elem Charter Schl 4

150162990252051 Addams Elem School 6

150162990252054 Aldridge Elem School 3

150162990252055 Altgeld Elem School 12

150162990252058 Armour Elem School 12

150162990252059 Armstrong G Elem IntL Studies 9

15016299025205C UNO Network Charter Schools 4

150162990252061 Attucks Elem School 13

150162990252063 Avalon Park Elem School 9

150162990252065 Banneker Elem School 12

150162990252066 Barnard Elem Comp Math & Sci Ctr 3

150162990252067 Barry Elem School 6

150162990252068 Barton Elem School 12

150162990252069 Bass Elem School 12

150162990252070 Bateman Elem School 4

150162990252072 Nicholson Technology Acad Elem Sc 12

150162990252079 Beethoven Elem School 2

150162990252080 Beidler Elem School 12

150162990252081 Belding Elem School 1

150162990252083 Bennett Elem School 2

150162990252084 Bethune Elem School 13

150162990252088 Bond Elem School 12

150162990252089 Boone Elem School 6

15016299025208C LEARN Elem Charter School 1

150162990252090 Bradwell Comm Arts & Sci Elem Sch 12

150162990252092 Haley Elem Academy 12

150162990252093 Brennemann Elem School 3

150162990252094 Brentano Elem Math & Science Acad 2

150162990252095 Bridge Elem School 5

150162990252096 Bright Elem School 2

150162990252097 Brown W Elem School 4

150162990252098 Brownell Elem School 12

150162990252100 Bouchet Elem Math & Science Acad 12

150162990252102 Burbank Elem School 12

150162990252103 Burke Elem School 12

150162990252106 Castellanos Elem School 12

150162990252107 Burnside Elem Scholastic Academy 4

150162990252109 Burroughs Elem School 2

150162990252110 Brunson Math & Sci Specialty Elem 9

150162990252113 Caldwell Elem Acad of Math & Sci 3

150162990252118 Cameron Elem School 12

150162990252120 Carnegie Elem School 1

150162990252122 Carroll Elem School 7

150162990252123 Carter Elem School 4

150162990252127 Cather Elem School 13Plenary Packet - Page 156-34

35

150162990252128 Chalmers Elem Specialty School 12

150162990252130 Chase Elem School 12

150162990252132 Clay Elem School 5

150162990252133 Cleveland Elem School 1

150162990252134 Clinton Elem School 6

150162990252136 Coles Elem Language Academy 3

150162990252139 Cook Elem School 12

150162990252142 Cooper Elem Dual Language Academy 4

150162990252145 Corkery Elem School 10

150162990252147 Crown Elem Comm Acd Fine Arts Ctr 12

150162990252148 Darwin Elem School 12

150162990252149 Davis N Elem School 12

15016299025214C Passages Elem Charter School 2

150162990252150 Dawes Elem School 9

150162990252152 Delano Elem School 12

150162990252153 Deneen Elem School 12

150162990252154 Dett Elem School 1

150162990252159 Dewey Elem Academy of Fine Arts 3

15016299025215C Kipp Ascend Elem Charter School 2

150162990252160 Disney Elem Magnet School 1

150162990252161 Dixon Elem School 2

150162990252169 Drake Elem School 2

150162990252173 Dubois Elem School 3

150162990252175 Dulles Elem School 12

150162990252176 Dumas Technology Acad Elem Sch 12

150162990252177 Dunne Technology Acad Elem Sch 3

150162990252179 Dvorak Technology Acad Elem Sch 8

15016299025217C Chicago Math & Sci Elem Charter 3

150162990252180 Earle Elem School 12

150162990252181 Eberhart Elem School 12

150162990252185 Edwards Elem School 6

150162990252187 Ellington Elem School 12

150162990252188 Armstrong L Elem Math & Sci 5

150162990252189 Emmet Elem School 12

15016299025218C Namaste Elem Charter School 3

150162990252190 Ericson Elem Scholastic Academy 2

150162990252191 Esmond Elem School 12

150162990252192 Everett Elem School 3

150162990252194 Falconer Elem School 9

150162990252195 Faraday Elem School 13

15016299025219C Erie Elem Charter School 3

150162990252201 Fermi Elem School 12

150162990252202 Fernwood Elem School 1

150162990252203 Field Elem School 12

150162990252204 Fiske Elem School 12

150162990252206 Fort Dearborn Elem School 2

150162990252209 Fuller Elem School 12

15016299025220C Galapagos Elem Charter School 2

150162990252210 Fulton Elem School 12

150162990252211 Funston Elem School 4

150162990252212 Gale Elem Community Academy 12

150162990252213 Gallistel Elem Language Academy 12

150162990252215 Gary Elem School 12

150162990252216 Woods Elem Math & Science Academy 12

15016299025221C Legacy Elem Charter School 1

150162990252220 Goethe Elem School 1

150162990252221 Goldblatt Elem School 12

150162990252222 Gompers Elem Fine Arts Opt School 12Plenary Packet - Page 156-35

36

150162990252223 Goudy Elem School 3

150162990252224 Graham A Elem School 12

150162990252226 Gray Elem School 5

150162990252227 Greeley Elem School 1

150162990252229 Greene N Elem School 5

15016299025222C Bronzeville Lighthouse Elem Chrtr 4

150162990252230 Gregory Math & Sci Elem Academy 1

150162990252231 Gresham Elem School 12

150162990252235 Haines Elem School 4

150162990252236 Gillespie Elem School 12

150162990252239 Hale Elem School 4

15016299025223C Catalyst Elem Charter School 4

150162990252241 Hamline Elem School 13

150162990252242 Hammond Elem School 4

150162990252246 Harvard Elem School 12

150162990252247 Haugan Elem School 5

15016299025224C Providence-Englewood Elem Charter 2

150162990252252 Hayt Elem School 7

150162990252254 Healy Elem School 6

150162990252255 Hearst Elem School 12

150162990252256 Hedges Elem School 12

150162990252258 Henderson Elem School 12

150162990252259 Hendricks Elem Community Academy 2

150162990252260 Henry Elem School 12

150162990252261 Henson Elem School 12

150162990252262 Herbert Elem School 12

150162990252263 Herzl Elem School 12

150162990252265 Hibbard Elem School 6

150162990252266 Higgins Elem Community Academy 3

150162990252267 Hinton Elem School 12

150162990252268 Hitch Elem School 2

150162990252269 Holden Elem School 4

15016299025226C Polaris Elem Charter Academy 3

150162990252270 Holmes Elem School 12

150162990252273 Howe Elem School 12

150162990252275 Hoyne Elem School 1

150162990252276 Hughes C Elem School 3

15016299025227C Amandla Elem Charter Sch 1

150162990252280 Hurley Elem School 7

150162990252281 Irving Elem School 3

150162990252284 Jahn Elem School 1

150162990252285 Jamieson Elem School 1

150162990252287 Jenner Elem Academy of The Arts 12

150162990252288 Jensen Elem Scholastic Academy 2

150162990252289 Pilsen Elem Community Academy 4

15016299025228C Catalyst Circle Rock Elem School 2

150162990252290 Johnson Elem School 12

150162990252292 Jungman Elem School 4

150162990252294 Kershaw Elem School 12

150162990252295 Key Elem School 12

150162990252296 Kilmer Elem School 12

150162990252297 King Elem School 12

15016299025229C Global Citizenship Elem Sch 1

150162990252300 Kipling Elem School 1

150162990252301 Kohn Elem School 12

150162990252303 Lozano Elem Bilingual & Intl Ctr 3

150162990252304 Kozminski Elem Community Academy 3

150162990252305 Lafayette Elem School 12Plenary Packet - Page 156-36

37

150162990252309 Lawndale Elem Community Academy 12

150162990252311 Lewis Elem School 12

150162990252313 Libby Elem School 12

150162990252315 Linne Elem School 12

150162990252316 Lloyd Elem School 12

150162990252317 Locke J Elem School 7

150162990252319 Lovett Elem School 12

150162990252321 Lowell Elem School 12

150162990252322 Lawrence Elem School 12

150162990252323 Lyon Elem School 3

150162990252324 Madison Elem School 12

150162990252326 Manierre Elem School 12

150162990252328 Mann Elem School 12

150162990252329 Marconi Elem Community Academy 12

150162990252330 Marquette Elem School 12

150162990252331 Marsh Elem School 5

150162990252334 Mason Elem School 12

150162990252336 May Elem Community Academy 12

150162990252338 Mayo Elem School 3

150162990252339 Mcclellan Elem School 2

150162990252341 Mccormick Elem School 4

150162990252344 Mccutcheon Elem School 3

150162990252346 Mckay Elem School 12

150162990252349 Mcpherson Elem School 12

150162990252352 Melody Elem School 12

150162990252354 Mollison Elem School 4

150162990252355 Monroe Elem School 12

150162990252356 Moos Elem School 12

150162990252357 Morrill Elem Math & Sci School 12

150162990252362 Mount Vernon Elem School 12

150162990252363 Mozart Elem School 12

150162990252365 Murphy Elem School 1

150162990252367 Brown R Elem Community Acad 3

150162990252368 Nash Elem School 12

150162990252369 Neil Elem School 7

150162990252372 Carver Primary School 3

150162990252373 Nightingale Elem School 12

150162990252374 Nixon Elem School 4

150162990252375 Nobel Elem School 12

150162990252381 Oglesby Elem School 12

150162990252382 OKeeffe Elem School 12

150162990252385 Piccolo Elem Specialty School 12

150162990252386 Otis Elem School 2

150162990252387 OToole Elem School 12

150162990252388 Overton Elem School 8

150162990252390 Paderewski Elem Learning Academy 12

150162990252391 Palmer Elem School 5

150162990252392 Parker Elem Community Academy 12

150162990252393 Parkman Elem School 12

150162990252394 Park Manor Elem School 12

150162990252395 Parkside Elem Community Academy 9

150162990252396 Pasteur Elem School 4

150162990252397 Peabody Elem School 2

150162990252398 Peck Elem School 10

150162990252399 Peirce Elem Intl Studies School 9

150162990252400 Penn Elem School 12

150162990252401 Washington H Elem School 7

150162990252403 Peterson Elem School 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-37

38

150162990252404 Pickard Elem School 12

150162990252405 Pirie Elem Fine Arts & Academic C 1

150162990252406 Plamondon Elem School 2

150162990252408 Pope Elem School 3

150162990252409 Portage Park Elem School 7

150162990252410 Prescott Elem School 1

150162990252412 Prussing Elem School 1

150162990252413 Pulaski Elem Fine Arts Academy 12

150162990252414 Pullman Elem School 12

150162990252416 Ravenswood Elem School 4

150162990252419 Reavis Elem Math & Sci Spec Schl 12

150162990252421 Reilly Elem School 12

150162990252422 Reinberg Elem School 4

150162990252423 Revere Elem School 12

150162990252426 Rogers Elem School 2

150162990252427 Ross Elem School 12

150162990252428 Ruggles Elem School 4

150162990252429 Ryder Elem Math & Sci Spec School 12

150162990252432 Ryerson Elem School 12

150162990252435 Sawyer Elem School 9

150162990252436 Sayre Elem Language Academy 2

150162990252437 Ashe Elem School 12

150162990252438 Scammon Elem School 9

150162990252439 Songhai Elem Learning Institute 12

150162990252442 Schmid Elem School 3

150162990252444 Schubert Elem School 4

150162990252446 Seward Elem Communication Arts Ac 5

150162990252447 Sexton Elem School 12

150162990252452 Mireles Elem Academy 12

150162990252453 Sherman Elem School 12

150162990252454 Sherwood Elem School 4

150162990252455 Shields Elem School 12

150162990252456 Shoesmith Elem School 3

150162990252457 Shoop Math-Sci Tech Elem Academy 12

150162990252459 Smyser Elem School 3

150162990252460 Smyth J Elem School 12

150162990252462 Spencer Technology Acad Elem Sch 12

150162990252464 Stagg Elem School 12

150162990252465 Stevenson Elem School 6

150162990252466 Stewart Elem School 12

150162990252469 Spry Elem Community School 12

150162990252470 Stockton Elem School 2

150162990252472 Stowe Elem School 9

150162990252474 Sullivan Elem School 12

150162990252475 Sumner Elem Math & Sci Comm Acad 2

150162990252477 Swift Elem Specialty School 2

150162990252478 Talcott Elem School 2

150162990252479 Tanner Elem School 3

150162990252480 Taylor Elem School 4

150162990252484 Thorp J N Elem School 3

150162990252487 Tilton Elem School 13

150162990252488 Tonti Elem School 8

150162990252489 Trumbull Elem School 2

150162990252490 Twain Elem School 3

150162990252492 Lavizzo Elem School 12

150162990252494 Volta Elem School 7

150162990252495 Von Humboldt Elem School 12

150162990252497 Wacker Elem School 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-38

39

150162990252498 Wadsworth Elem School 12

150162990252500 Walsh Elem School 5

150162990252502 Warren Elem School 3

150162990252505 Webster Elem School 12

150162990252506 Wentworth Elem School 12

150162990252507 Westcott Elem School 12

150162990252509 West Pullman Elem School 12

150162990252510 Pritzker Elem School 1

150162990252512 Whistler Elem School 12

150162990252513 Whitney Elem School 12

150162990252514 Whittier Elem School 12

150162990252521 Woodson South Elem School 4

150162990252522 Yale Elem School 12

150162990252525 Young Elem School 9

150162990252542 Yates Elem School 12

150162990252597 Hernandez Middle School 1

150162990252603 Dirksen Elem School 1

150162990252605 Depriest Elem School 12

150162990252617 Cuffe Math-Sci Tech Elem Academy 1

150162990252618 Foster Park Elem School 12

150162990252620 Hughes L Elem School 1

150162990252634 Mcnair Elem School 9

150162990252636 Hay Elem Community Academy 12

150162990252637 Cullen Elem School 1

150162990252700 Clark G R Elem School 2

150162990252703 Lee Elem School 7

150162990252704 Langford A Elem School 12

150162990252706 Salazar Elem Bilingual Center 2

150162990252714 Leland Elem School 2

150162990252724 Robinson Elem School 3

150162990252726 Hanson Park Elem School 5

150162990252729 White Elem Career Academy 3

150162990252766 Till Elem Math & Science Academy 9

150162990252767 Ward L Elem School 1

150162990252768 Smith W Elem School 12

150162990252771 Bontemps Elem School 8

150162990252773 Garvey M Elem School 1

150162990252775 Joplin Elem School 2

150162990252783 Cardenas Elem School 12

150162990252785 Powell Elem Paideia Comm Academy 12

150162990252799 Curtis Elem School 12

150162990252802 Mays Elem Academy 2

150162990252804 Metcalfe Elem Community Academy 6

150162990252806 Kanoon Elem Magnet School 12

150162990252807 Randolph Elem School 12

150162990252810 Owens Elem Community Academy 1

150162990252811 Gunsaulus Elem Scholastic Academy 3

150162990252812 Goodlow Elem Magnet School 12

150162990252823 Ninos Heroes Elem Academic Ctr 12

150162990252825 De Diego Elem Community Academy 9

150162990252828 Sabin Elem Magnet School 2

150162990252829 Saucedo Elem Scholastic Academy 6

150162990252837 Daley Elem Academy 4

150162990252838 Madero Middle School 12

150162990252842 Orozco Elem Fine Arts & Sciences 3

150162990252844 Morton Elem Career Academy 13

150162990252845 Canter Middle School 3

150162990252862 Casals Elem School 12Plenary Packet - Page 156-39

40

150162990252864 Perez Elem School 4

150162990252867 Ruiz Elem School 4

150162990252869 Roque De Duprey Elem School 12

150162990252870 Brighton Park Elem School 12

150162990252873 Evergreen Academy Elem School 12

150162990252876 Carson Elem School 6

150162990252877 Mcauliffe Elem School 6

150162990252881 Logandale Middle School 2

150162990252882 Marshall Middle School 12

150162990252886 Chavez Elem Multicultural Acad Ct 12

150162990252889 Jordan Elem Community School 12

150162990252893 Finkl Elem School 4

150162990252895 Ariel Elem Community Academy 1

150162990252896 Little Village Elem School 12

150162990252897 Zapata Elem Academy 5

150162990252898 Ortiz De Dominguez Elem School 4

150162990252900 Lara Elem Academy 12

150162990252901 Telpochcalli Elem School 12

150162990252902 Wells Preparatory Elem Academy 1

150162990252904 Christopher Elem School 12

150162990252908 West Park Elem Academy 12

150162990252912 Ames Middle School 12

150162990252913 Fairfield Elem Academy 12

150162990252914 Sandoval Elem School 4

150162990252915 Northwest Middle School 12

150162990252916 Hampton Elem Fine & Perf Arts Sch 10

150162990252918 Colemon J Elem Academy 2

150162990252919 Columbia Explorers Elem Academy 7

150162990252922 Ashburn Community Elem School 3

150162990252923 Belmont-Cragin Elem School 4

150162990252924 National Teachers Elem Academy 8

150162990252926 Talman Elem School 4

150162990252927 Dodge Elem School 1

150162990252928 Williams Multiplex Elem School 4

150162990252930 New Field Elem School 6

150162990252932 Williams Middle Prep Academy 2

150162990252933 Durkin Park Elem School 4

150162990252934 Calmeca Acad Elem School 1

150162990252935 North River Elem School 2

150162990252936 Claremont Academy Elem School 6

150162990252937 Doolittle Elem School 4

150162990252940 Pershing West Elem Magnet School 1

150162990252943 Tarkington Elem School 5

150162990252946 Frazier Prep Acad Elem School 3

150162990252951 Plato Learning Acad Elem School 1

150162990252954 Davis, M Magnet Elem School 2

150162990252956 Garfield Park Prep Acad Elem Sch 1

150162990252958 Prieto Math-Science Elem Sch 1

150162990252960 South Shore Fine Arts Elem Sch 1

150162990252961 Hope Inst Learning Acad ES 1

Clay City CUSD 10

120130100262001 Clay City Elem School 2

Clinton CUSD 15

170200150262003 Douglas Elem School 1


170200150262006 Webster Elem School 1Plenary Packet - Page 156-40

41

Cobden SUD 17

020910170221001 Cobden Jr High School 2

020910170222002 Cobden Elem School 2

Collinsville CUSD 10

410570100262001 Webster Elementary School 1

410570100262006 Caseyville Elementary School 2

410570100262011 Kreitner Elem School 4

410570100262014 John A Renfro Elementary School 1

410570100262023 Twin Echo Elem School 1

Colona SD 190

280371900022001 Colona Grade School 2

Comm Cons SD 59

050160590042014 John Jay Elem School 4

050160590042018 Rupley Elem School 2

Cook County SD 130

070161300021001 Everett F Kerr Middle School 8

070161300021002 Nathan Hale Middle School 9

070161300021003 Veterans Memorial Middle Sch 1

070161300022004 Nathan Hale Intermediate 1

070161300022008 Paul Revere Intermediate School 5

070161300022010 Whittier Elementary School 6


070161300022012 Nathan Hale Primary School 2

070161300022018 Paul Revere Primary School 3

070161300022019 George Washington Elementary Sch 2

Coulterville USD 1

450790010220001 Coulterville High School 2

450790010222001 Coulterville Elementary School 2

Country Club Hills SD 160

070161600021001 Southwood Middle School 8

070161600022003 Zenon J Sykuta School 4

070161600022004 Meadowview School 3

County of Winnebago SD 320

041013200261002 South Beloit Jr High School 1

041013200262004 Riverview Elementary School 1

County of Woodford School

431021220170001 Metamora High School 2

Cowden-Herrick CUSD 3A

11087003A262001 Herrick Elementary School 1

Crab Orchard CUSD 3

211000030262001 Crab Orchard Elementary School 1

Creston CCSD 161

470711610042001 Creston Elem School 1

Crete Monee CUSD 201U

56099201U262003 Balmoral Elem Sch 3

56099201U262004 Crete Elementary School 3

56099201U262007 Talala Elementary School 2

Creve Coeur SD 76

530900760021005 Parkview Jr High School 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-41

42

530900760022004 LaSalle Elem School 2

Crystal Lake CCSD 47

440630470042001 Canterbury Elem School 4

440630470042003 Coventry Elem School 1

440630470042005 North Elem School 3

Cumberland CUSD 77

110180770261001 Cumberland Middle School 1

CUSD 200

190222000262002 Hawthorne Elem School 1

190222000262018 Clifford Johnson School 2

CUSD 3 Fulton County

220290030262003 Cuba Elem School 3

CUSD 300

310453000261001 Carpentersville Middle School 12

310453000262012 Golfview Elem School 4

310453000262016 Meadowdale Elem School 4

310453000262018 Parkview Elementary School 2

310453000262021 Perry Elementary School 4

310453000262022 Lakewood School 9

CUSD 4

010010040261001 Unity Middle School 2

010010040262004 Greenfield Elementary School 1

Dallas ESD 327

260343270042002 Dallas City Elem School 2

Danville CCSD 118

540921180241021 South View Middle School 2

540921180242001 Cannon Elem School 2

540921180242005 Edison Elem School 1


540921180242010 Liberty Elem School 2

540921180242019 Meade Park Elem School 4

540921180242020 East Park Elementary School 3

540921180242021 Southwest Elem School 2

Darien SD 61

190220610022002 Lace Elem School 2

Decatur SD 61

390550610251030 Thomas Jefferson Middle School 11

390550610251034 Stephen Decatur Middle School 10

390550610252002 Brush College Elem School 2

390550610252004 Dennis Elem School 2

390550610252005 Durfee Elem School 3

390550610252007 Enterprise Elem School 2

390550610252009 Benjamin Franklin Elem School 3

390550610252010 Mary W French Academy 1

390550610252014 William Harris Elem School 2

390550610252017 Oak Grove Accelerated School 1

390550610252019 Parsons Accelerated School 4

390550610252023 South Shores Elem School 3

390550610252025 Stevenson Accelerated School 1

390550610252032 Johns Hill Magnet School 2

390550610252034 Hope Academy 3Plenary Packet - Page 156-42

43

DeKalb CUSD 428


160194280262007 Littlejohn Elem School 2

160194280262008 Tyler Elementary School 2

DePue USD 103

280061030222001 DePue Elem School 4

Diamond Lake SD 76

340490760022003 Diamond Lake Elem School 3

District 50 Schools

530900500022001 J L Hensey Elem School 1

Dixon USD 170



Dodds CCSD 7

250410070042001 Dodds Elem School 1

Dolton SD 148

070161480021003 Lincoln Junior High School 1

070161480021004 Washington Junior High 3

070161480022002 Riverdale School 4



070161480022007 Franklin Elementary School 2

070161480022010 Park Elementary School 3

Dolton SD 149

070161490021003 Dirksen Middle School 12

070161490022002 Diekman Elem School 2

070161490022005 Caroline Sibley Elem School 4

070161490022006 Berger-Vandenberg Elem School 5

070161490022009 Carol Moseley Braun School 4

070161490022010 New Beginnings Learning Academy 3

Dongola USD 66

020910660220001 Dongola High School 7

020910660221001 Dongola Jr High School 4

020910660222001 Dongola Elementary School 1

DuPage HSD 88

190220880160001 Addison Trail High School 2

190220880160002 Willowbrook High School 9

Dupo CUSD 196

500821960260001 Dupo High School 1

500821960262006 Bluffview Elem School 1

Duquoin CUSD 300

300733000262002 Duquoin Middle School 6

300733000262003 Duquoin Elementary School 3

Dwight Twp HSD 230

170532300170001 Dwight High School 1

Earlville CUSD 9

350500090262001 Earlville Elem School 1Plenary Packet - Page 156-43

44

East Alton SD 13

410570130021001 East Alton Middle School 1

410570130022002 Eastwood Elem School 1

East Alton-Wood River CHSD 14

410570140160001 East Alton-Wood River High Sch 10

East Dubuque USD 119

080431190222002 East Dubuque Elem School 3

East Maine SD 63

050160630022006 V H Nelson Elem School 1

050160630022008 Stevenson School 4

050160630022009 Mark Twain Elem School 2

050160630022012 Apollo Elem School 4

East Moline SD 37

490810370022003 Hillcrest Elem School 1

490810370022009 Wells Elem School 2

East Peoria CHSD 309

530903090160001 East Peoria High School 6

East Peoria SD 86

530900860021011 Central Jr High School 1

East Richland CUSD 1

120800010262008 East Richland Elementary School 2

East St Louis SD 189

50082189022001C SIU Charter Sch of East St Louis 5

50082189022002C Tomorrows Builders Charter Schl 3

500821890220043 East St Louis Senior High School 10

500821890221007 Mason/Clark Middle Sch 12

500821890221036 East St Louis-Lincoln Middle Sch 12

500821890222054 Katie Harper-Wright Elem 5

500821890222055 Gordon Bush Elementary 5

500821890222056 James Avant Elementary School 2

Edwards County CUSD 1

200240010262001 Albion Grade School 1

Effingham CUSD 40

030250400262002 Central Grade School 1

030250400262008 South Side Grade School 1

Egyptian CUSD 5

020020050260001 Egyptian Sr High School 8

020020050261001 Egyptian Jr High School 1

020020050262002 Egyptian Elem School 1

Eldorado CUSD 4

200830040262004 Eldorado Elem School 4

Elmhurst SD 205

190222050261002 Churchville Middle School 1

Elmwood Park CUSD 401

060164010262003 Elmwood Elem School 1

060164010262004 John Mills Elem School 2

Elverado CUSD 196 Plenary Packet - Page 156-44

45

300391960260001 Elverado High School 2

300391960262004 Elverado Intermediate School 1

Elwood CCSD 203

560992030042001 Elwood C C School 1

ESD 159

070161590021001 Colin Powell Middle Sch 4

070161590022004 Neil Armstrong Elem School 2

070161590022006 Marya Yates Elementary School 1

Eureka CUD 140

431021400261002 Eureka Middle School 1

Evanston CCSD 65

050160650041002 Chute Middle School 2

050160650042014 Oakton Elem School 2


Evanston Twp HSD 202

050162020170001 Evanston Twp High School 9

Evergreen Park CHSD 231

070162310160001 Evergreen Park High School 3

Evergreen Park ESD 124

070161240022002 Northeast Elem School 3

070161240022004 Southeast Elem School 2

Fairfield Comm H S Dist 225

200962250160001 Fairfield Comm High School 4

Fairfield PSD 112

200961120042001 Center Street Elem School 1

200961120042002 North Side Elem School 1

Fairmont SD 89

560990890022002 Fairmont School 4

Farmington Central CUSD 265

480722650262002 Farmington Central Elem Sch 2

Fenton CHSD 100

190221000160001 Fenton High School 9

Field CCSD 3

250410030042001 Field Elementary School 1

Fisher CUSD 1

090100010262002 Fisher Grade School 2

Ford Heights SD 169

070161690021001 Cottage Grove Upper Grade Center 12

070161690022002 Medgar Evers Primary Acadmc Cntr 1

Forest Ridge SD 142

070161420022003 Lee R Foster Elem School 1

Frankfort CUSD 168

210281680262003 Denning Elementary School 2

210281680262004 Frankfort Intermediate School 4

Franklin Park SD 84Plenary Packet - Page 156-45

46

060160840022004 Dan H Pietrini Elem School 2

060160840022005 Passow Elementary School 1

Freeburg CCSD 70

500820700042003 Freeburg Elem School 1

Freeburg CHSD 77

500820770160001 Freeburg Community High Sch 2

Freeport SD 145

080891450221002 Freeport Middle School 1

080891450222003 Blackhawk Elem School 1

080891450222004 Center Elem School 3

080891450222006 Empire Elem School 1

080891450222012 Taylor Park Elem School 2

080891450222015 Carl Sandburg Middle Sch 3

Fremont SD 79

340490790022002 Fremont Intermediate School 2

Galatia CUSD 1

200830010261001 Galatia Jr High 1

Galena USD 120

080431200222002 Galena Primary School 1

Galesburg CUSD 205

330482050262017 King School 1

330482050262020 Nielson Elementary School 1

330482050262021 Steele School 1

330482050262022 Cooke School 1

Gallatin CUSD 7

200300070260001 Gallatin High School 3

200300070261001 Gallatin Junior High School 2

200300070262001 Gallatin Elementary School 1

Galva CUSD 224

280372240262004 Galva Elem School 1

Gardner S Wilmington Twp HSD 73

240320730170001 Gardner-South Wilmington Twp H S 3

Gavin SD 37

340490370022003 Gavin Central School 4

Gen George Patton SD 133

070161330022001 Gen George Patton Elem School 12

Georgetown-Ridge Farm CUD 4

540920040261003 Mary Miller Junior High School 3

540920040262002 Pine Crest Elementary School 1

540920040262003 Ridge Farm Elementary School 2

Gillespie CUSD 7

400560070262003 Benld Elementary School 3

Glen Ellyn SD 41

190220410022003 Churchill Elem School 2

Glenbard Twp HSD 87

190220870170001 Glenbard East High School 9Plenary Packet - Page 156-46

47

Granite City CUSD 9

410570090262007 Frohardt Elem School 2

410570090262012 Maryville Elem School 3

410570090262013 Mitchell Elementary School 2

410570090262015 Niedringhaus Elementary School 1

410570090262016 Worthen Elem School 1

410570090262020 Wilson Elem School 3

410570090262022 Prather Elementary School 4

Grant CCSD 110

500821100042002 Illini Elem School 1

Grant CHSD 124

340491240160001 Grant Community High School 4

Grayslake CCSD 46

340490460042001 Avon Center Elem School 1

Greenview CUSD 200

380652000262001 Greenview Elementary School 2

Griggsville-Perry CUSD 4

010750040261002 Griggsville-Perry Middle School 2

Gurnee SD 56

340490560022001 O Plaine School 4

340490560022002 Spaulding Elementary School 1

Hall HSD 502

280065020170001 Hall High School 5

Hamilton CCSD 328

260343280242004 Hamilton Elementary School 1

Hardin County CUSD 1

200350010261001 Hardin County Jr High School 2

200350010262001 Hardin County Elem School 3

Harlem UD 122

041011220222005 Loves Park Elem School 1

041011220222006 Maple Elem School 2

041011220222008 Rock Cut Elem School 3

041011220222011 Windsor Elem School 1

041011220222013 Machesney Elem School 1

Harmony Emge SD 175

500821750021001 Emge Junior High School 1

500821750022002 Ellis Elem School 1

Harrisburg CUSD 3

200830030262009 East Side Intermediate School 3

Harrison SD 36

440630360022001 Harrison Elem School 1

Harvey SD 152

070161520021001 Brooks Middle School 12

070161520022001 Bryant Elem School 2

070161520022002 Maya Angelou Elem Sch 2

070161520022004 Holmes Elem School 2

070161520022005 Lowell-Longfellow Elem School 4Plenary Packet - Page 156-47

48

070161520022007 Sandburg Elem School 1


Hawthorn CCSD 73

340490730042002 Hawthorn Elem School North 3

340490730042004 Hawthorn Elem School South 2

Hazel Crest SD 152-5

070161525021002 Robert Frost Middle School 3

070161525022004 Warren Palm School 2

070161525022005 Woodland School 1

Henry-Senachwine CUSD 5

430590050262001 Henry-Senachwine Grade School 2

Heritage CUSD 8

090100080262001 Heritage Elementary School -Homer 1

Herrin CUSD 4

211000040261001 Herrin Middle School 2

211000040262010 Herrin C U S D 4 Elem School 4

Hillsboro CUSD 3

100680030262003 Beckemeyer Elem School 2

100680030262006 Coffeen Elem School 2

Hillside SD 93

060160930022001 Hillside Elem School 6

Hinsdale Twp HSD 86

190220860170002 Hinsdale South High School 9

Hononegah CHD 207

041012070160001 Hononegah High School 3

Hoopeston Area CUSD 11

540920110262001 Honeywell Elem School 2

540920110262003 Maple Elem School 2

Hoover-Schrum Memorial SD 157

070161570021001 Schrum Memorial School 2

070161570022001 Hoover Elem School 3

Hutsonville CUSD 1

120170010262002 Hutsonville Elem and Jr High Sch 1

Il Valley Central USD 321

480723210262008 Chillicothe Elementary Center 1

Illini Central CUSD 189

380601890262001 Illini Central Grade School 3

Illini West H S Dist 307

260343070160001 Illini West High School 3

Ina CCSD 8

250410080042001 Ina Community Cons School 2

Indian Prairie CUSD 204

190222040262002 Longwood Elem School 2

190222040262007 Georgetown Elementary School 2

Indian Springs SD 109Plenary Packet - Page 156-48

49

070161090022001 Bridgeview Elem School 1

070161090022002 Frank A Brodnicki Elem School 2

070161090022004 Robina Lyle Elem and Early Chldhd 1

070161090022006 George T Wilkins Elem School 3

J S Morton HSD 201

060162010170001 J Sterling Morton East High Sch 3

060162010170002 J Sterling Morton West High Sch 6

Jacksonville SD 117


Jersey CUSD 100

400421000262007 Jerseyville East Elem School 2

Johnston City CUSD 1



Joliet PSD 86

560990860051001 Dirksen Junior High School 2

560990860051002 Gompers Junior High School 12

560990860051003 Hufford Junior High School 12

560990860051004 Washington Jr High & Academy Prgm 12

560990860052001 T E Culbertson Elem School 3

560990860052002 M J Cunningham Elem Sch 4

560990860052004 Farragut Elem School 3

560990860052005 Forest Park Individual Ed School 2

560990860052007 Edna Keith Elem School 4

560990860052011 A O Marshall Elem School 6

560990860052013 Carl Sandburg Elementary 3

560990860052015 Pershing Elem School 1

560990860052022 Woodland Elem School 5

560990860052024 Sator Sanchez Elem School 2

560990860052025 Lynne Thigpen Elem School 4

Joliet Twp HSD 204

560992040170001 Joliet Central High School 10

560992040170003 Joliet West High School 10

Jonesboro CCSD 43

020910430042001 Jonesboro Elem School 1

Kaneland CUSD 302

310453020262008 Kaneland John Stewart Elem Sch 1

Kankakee SD 111

320461110251008 Kankakee Junior High School 12

320461110252003 Edison Primary School 2

320461110252005 Lafayette Primary School 2

320461110252009 Steuben Elementary School 2

320461110252010 Taft Primary School 1

320461110252011 Mark Twain Primary School 1

320461110252015 John Kennedy Middle Grade School 8

320461110252016 King Middle Grade School 12

Kansas CUSD 3

110230030262002 Kansas Elem School 1

Keeneyville SD 20

190220200021001 Spring Wood Middle School 5Plenary Packet - Page 156-49

50

190220200022003 Greenbrook Elem School 6

Kewanee CUSD 229

280372290261001 Central Junior High 2

280372290262002 Central Elem 3


La Moille CUSD 303

280063030262004 Allen Junior High School 2

La Salle ESD 122

350501220021006 Lincoln Jr High School 1

350501220022005 Northwest Elem School 3

La Salle-Peru Twp HSD 120

350501200170001 La Salle-Peru Twp High School 6

Lake Forest CHSD 115

340491150160001 Lake Forest High School 1

Lake Park CHSD 108

190221080160001 Lake Park High School 9

Lake Zurich CUSD 95

340490950261002 Lake Zurich Middle - N Campus 2

340490950262005 May Whitney Elem School 2

340490950262006 Sarah Adams Elementary School 1

Lansing SD 158

070161580022001 Coolidge Elementary School 3

070161580022005 Oak Glen Elem School 3

070161580022006 Reavis Elem School 3

Laraway CCSD 70C

56099070C042001 Laraway Elem School 3

Lawrence County CUD 20

120510200262007 Parkside Elementary School 1

Lebanon CUSD 9

500820090262002 Lebanon Elem School 2

Lemont Twp HSD 210

070162100170001 Lemont Twp High School 2

LeRoy CUSD 2

170640020260003 LeRoy High School 2

Leyden CHSD 212

060162120160001 East Leyden High School 8

060162120160002 West Leyden High School 8

Limestone CHSD 310

480723100160001 Limestone Community High School 5

Lincoln CHSD 404

380544040160001 Lincoln Comm High School 3

Lincoln ESD 156


Lincoln ESD 27

380540270022006 Northwest Elem School 1Plenary Packet - Page 156-50

51

Lindop SD 92

060160920022001 Lindop Elem School 2

Litchfield CUSD 12

100680120262006 Russell Elem School 1

Lockport Twp HSD 205

560992050170001 Lockport Township High Sch East 2

Lombard SD 44

190220440022013 Madison Elementary School 1

Ludlow CCSD 142

090101420042001 Ludlow Elementary School 1

Lyons SD 103


060161030022006 J W Robinson Jr Elem School 2

060161030022007 Washington Middle School 8

Lyons Twp HSD 204

060162040170001 Lyons Twp High Sch 2

Macomb CUSD 185


260621850262008 Edison Elementary School 1

Maine Township HSD 207

050162070170001 Maine East High School 9

Mannheim SD 83

060160830021003 Mannheim Middle School 9

060160830022002 Scott Elementary School 2

060160830022004 Roy Elem School 5

060160830022005 Westdale Elem School 2

Marengo CHSD 154

440631540160001 Marengo High School 4

Marengo-Union E Cons D 165

440631650031001 Marengo Comm Middle School 1

Marion CUSD 2

211000020262007 Longfellow Elem School 2

Marissa CUSD 40

500820400262002 Marissa Elem School 2

Marquardt SD 15

190220150021004 Marquardt Middle School 4

190220150022001 G Stanley Hall Elem School 3

190220150022003 Reskin Elem School 3

Marseilles ESD 150

350501500022001 Marseilles Elementary School 1

Massac UD 1

020610010262010 Brookport Elementary School 2

Mattoon CUSD 2

110150020262015 Arland D Williams Jr Elem Sch 3

110150020262016 Riddle Elementary School 3Plenary Packet - Page 156-51

52

Maywood-Melrose Park-Broadview 89

060160890022002 Emerson Elem School 2



060160890022005 Lexington Elem School 12


060160890022007 Melrose Park Elem School 12

060160890022008 Roosevelt Elem School 3

060160890022010 Stevenson Elem School 5


McHenry CCSD 15

440630150041008 Chauncey H Duker School 2

440630150042004 Valley View Elem School 2

440630150042005 Riverwood Elementary School 4

McHenry CHSD 156

440631560160001 McHenry High School-West Campus 3

McLean County USD 5

170640050262005 Fairview Elem School 3

Mendota CCSD 289

350502890041002 Northbrook School 1


Mendota Twp HSD 280

350502800170001 Mendota Twp High School 4

Meredosia-Chambersburg CUSD 11

460690110262003 Meredosia-Chambersburg Elem Sch 2

Meridian CUSD 101

020771010260001 Meridian High School 10

020771010262005 Meridian Elementary School 8

Meridian CUSD 223

470712230262004 Monroe Center Grade School 2

Midlothian SD 143

070161430022001 Central Park Elem School 9

070161430022002 Kolmar Elem School 1

070161430022004 Springfield Elem School 1

Midwest Central CUSD 191

380601910262003 Midwest Central Primary School 2

Moline USD 40

490810400222007 Butterworth Elem School 1

490810400222010 Ericsson Elem School 3


490810400222016 Lincoln-Irving Elem School 3

490810400222017 Logan Elem School 2

490810400222022 George Washington Elem School 3

Monmouth-Roseville CUSD 238

270942380262001 Harding Primary School 2

Morris CHSD 101

240321010160001 Morris Community High School 4Plenary Packet - Page 156-52

53

Morris SD 54

240320540022004 White Oak Elementary 3

Morton Grove SD 70

050160700022003 Park View Elem School 1

Mount Prospect SD 57


Mount Vernon SD 80

250410800021001 Zadok Casey Middle School 2

250410800022002 J L Buford Intermediate Ed Ctr 5

250410800022008 Mt Vernon Dist 80 Primary Center 5

Mt Vernon Twp HSD 201

250412010170001 Mount Vernon High School 6

Mt Zion CUSD 3

390550030262006 Mt Zion Intermediate School 2

Mulberry Grove CUSD 1

030030010261001 Mulberry Grove Jr High School 1

030030010262001 Mulberry Grove Elem School 2

Mundelein Cons HSD 120

340491200130001 Mundelein Cons High School 6

Murphysboro CUSD 186

300391860260001 Murphysboro High School 5

300391860261002 Murphysboro Middle School 9

300391860262009 Carruthers Elementary School 1

300391860262010 Gen John A Logan Attendance Cntr 1

Naperville CUSD 203

190222030262005 Mill Street Elem School 1

Nashville CCSD 49

130950490042002 Nashville Grade School 1

Nashville CHSD 99

130950990160001 Nashville Comm High School 3

Niles Twp CHSD 219

050162190170002 Niles North High School 9

050162190170003 Niles West High School 2

Nokomis CUSD 22


Norris City-Omaha-Enfield CUSD 3

200970030262003 Booth Elementary School 2

North Boone CUSD 200

040042000262004 Poplar Grove Elem School 1

North Chicago SD 187

340491870260001 North Chicago Community High Sch 1

340491870261003 Neal Math Science Academy 4

340491870262002 Forrestal Elem School 3

340491870262003 Greenbay Elem School 5

340491870262006 South Elementary School 3

340491870262008 A J Katzenmaier Elem School 8Plenary Packet - Page 156-53

54


340491870262010 Novak-King Sixth Grade Center 2

North Clay CUSD 25

120130250262004 North Clay Elem/Jr High Sch 2

North Greene CUSD 3

400310030262005 White Hall Elem School 1

North Shore SD 112

340491120021001 Northwood Jr High School 1

340491120022007 Oak Terrace Elem School 4

Northfield Twp HSD 225

050162250170002 Glenbrook South High School 4

Northwestern CUSD 2

400560020262005 Northwestern Elem School 1

O Fallon Twp HSD 203

500822030170001 O Fallon High School 5

Oak Lawn CHSD 229

070162290160001 Oak Lawn Comm High School 5

Oak Lawn-Hometown SD 123

070161230022003 J Covington Elem School 1

070161230022007 Hometown Elem School 2

Oak Park - River Forest SD 200

060162000130001 Oak Park & River Forest High Sch 9

Oak Park ESD 97

060160970022001 William Beye Elem School 1

Oakland CUSD 5

110150050262001 Lake Crest Elem School 1

Oblong CUSD 4

120170040262002 Oblong Elem School 6

Oglesby ESD 125


Olympia CUSD 16

170640160261001 Olympia Middle School 1

Oregon CUSD 220

470712200262006 Oregon Elem Sch 2

Orland SD 135

070161350022010 Orland Center School 1

Oswego CUSD 308

240473080260002 Oswego East High School 3

240473080261002 Traughber Jr High School 1

240473080261003 Thompson Jr High School 2

240473080261005 Plank Junior High 2

240473080262004 Boulder Hill Elem School 3

240473080262005 Long Beach Elem School 1

Ottawa ESD 141

350501410022004 Jefferson Elem School 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-54

55

350501410022009 Central Intermediate School 3

Ottawa Twp HSD 140

350501400170001 Ottawa Township High School 6

Palatine CCSD 15

050160150042001 Jane Addams Elem School 4

050160150042005 Kimball Hill Elem School 2

Palestine CUSD 3

120170030262002 Palestine Grade School 2

Palos CCSD 118

070161180042002 Palos East Elementary School 2

Pana CUSD 8

100110080261005 Pana Jr High School 1


Paris-Union SD 95

110230950251001 Mayo Middle School 2

Park Forest SD 163

070161630021010 Forest Trail Middle School 2

070161630022003 Blackhawk Intermediate Center 1

070161630022007 Mohawk Intermediate School 1

Patoka CUSD 100

130581000262001 Patoka Elem School 1

Paxton-Buckley-Loda CUD 10

090270100262005 PBL Eastlawn 1

Pekin CSD 303

530903030160002 Pekin Community High School 8

Pekin PSD 108

530901080022013 Wilson Intermediate School 2

530901080022015 Washington Intermediate School 1

Pembroke CCSD 259

320462590042001 Lorenzo R Smith Elem School 1

Peoria SD 150

480721500250023 Manual High School 10

480721500250024 Peoria High School 2

480721500251001 Rolling Acres Edison Jr Academy 2

480721500251002 Sterling Middle School 12

480721500251003 Von Steuben Middle School 2

480721500251012 Trewyn Middle School 12

480721500251013 Mark W Bills Middle School 1


480721500252010 Whittier Primary School 1

480721500252011 Woodrow Wilson Primary School 1

480721500252028 Roosevelt Magnet School 1

480721500252032 Franklin-Edison Primary School 3

480721500252034 Glen Oak Primary School 5

480721500252036 Harrison Primary School 7

480721500252038 Irving Primary School 5

480721500252039 Thomas Jefferson Primary School 2

Peotone CUSD 207UPlenary Packet - Page 156-55

56

56099207U262003 Peotone Elem School 1

Peru ESD 124

350501240021001 Parkside Middle School 2

Pikeland CUSD 10

010750100262007 Pittsfield South Elem School 1

010750100262010 Pikeland Community School 9

Pinckneyville CHSD 101

300731010160001 Pinckneyville Comm High School 3

Pinckneyville SD 50

300730500022001 Pinckneyville Elem School 1

300730500022002 Pinckneyville Middle School 2

Plainfield SD 202

560992020221003 Timber Ridge Middle School 2

560992020222003 Central Elem School 2

560992020222004 Crystal Lawns Elem School 2

560992020222005 Grand Prairie Elem School 1

560992020222008 Lakewood Falls Elem School 1

560992020222011 Creekside Elementary School 2

Plano CUSD 88

240470880262003 Centennial Elem School 2

240470880262004 Emily G Johns School 2

Pleasant Hill CUSD 3

010750030262001 Pleasant Hill Elem School 2

Pleasant Hill SD 69


Pleasant Valley SD 62

480720620021001 Pleasant Valley Middle School 1

Pontiac CCSD 429



Pontiac Twp HSD 90

170530900170001 Pontiac High School 5

Pope Co CUD 1

200760010262002 Pope County Elementary School 3

Porta CUSD 202

380652020262006 Porta Central 3

Posen-Robbins ESD 143-5

070161435021003 Kellar School 12

070161435022006 Posen Elem School 9

070161435022010 Gordon School 3

Prairie-Hills ESD 144

070161440021002 Prairie-Hills Junior High School 12

070161440022003 Fieldcrest Elem School 1

070161440022004 Highlands Elem School 2

070161440022005 Markham Park Elem School 3

070161440022007 Nob Hill Elem School 2

070161440022009 Chateaux School 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-56

57

070161440022010 Mae Jemison School 3

Princeton ESD 115


Princeton HSD 500

280065000150001 Princeton High School 4

Proviso Twp HSD 209

060162090170001 Proviso East High School 10

060162090170002 Proviso West High School 4

Queen Bee SD 16

190220160021004 Glenside Middle School 6

190220160022001 Americana Intermediate School 1

Quincy SD 172

010011720222004 Adams Elementary School 1

010011720222008 Berrian School 2

010011720222017 Washington Elementary School 1

010011720222019 Baldwin Intermediate 2

Raccoon Cons SD 1

130580010032001 Raccoon Cons Elem School 2

Ramsey CUSD 204

030262040260002 Ramsey High School 3

030262040262001 Ramsey Elem School 5

Rantoul City SD 137

090101370022001 Broadmeadow Elem School 4

090101370022002 Eastlawn Elem School 2

090101370022006 Northview Elem School 3

090101370022007 Pleasant Acres Elem School 2

Rantoul Township HSD 193

090101930170001 Rantoul Twp High School 1

Reavis Twp HSD 220

070162200170001 Reavis High School 4

Red Bud CUSD 132

450791320262002 Red Bud Elem School 1

Rhodes SD 84-5

060160845022001 Rhodes Elem School 4

Rich Twp HSD 227

070162270170001 Rich East Campus High School 10

070162270170002 Rich Central Campus High School 7

070162270170003 Rich South Campus High School 10

Richland GSD 88A

56099088A021001 Richland Jr High 2

56099088A022001 Richland Elem School 1

Ridgeland SD 122

070161220022001 Columbus Manor Elem School 2

070161220022003 Harnew Elem School 2

Ridgewood CHSD 234

060162340160001 Ridgewood Comm High School 5Plenary Packet - Page 156-57

58

River Trails SD 26

050160260021006 River Trails Middle School 1

Riverdale CUSD 100

490811000262007 Riverdale Elem School 2

Riverside SD 96

060160960021004 L J Hauser Jr High School 1

Riverside-Brookfield Twp SD 208

060162080170001 Riverside Brookfield Twp HS 2

Riverton CUSD 14

510840140262003 Riverton Elem School 2

Riverview CCSD 2

431020020042001 Riverview Elem School 1

Robinson CUSD 2



Rochelle CCSD 231

470712310042001 Central Elem School 2


Rochelle Twp HSD 212

470712120170001 Rochelle Twp High School 6

Rock Falls ESD 13

550980130022001 Dillon Elementary School 1

550980130022002 Merrill Elem School 1

Rock Falls Twp HSD 301

550983010170001 Rock Falls Township High School 5

Rock Island SD 41

490810410251003 Edison Jr High School 6

490810410251005 Washington Jr High School 6

490810410252007 Denkmann Elem School 1

490810410252008 Earl H Hanson Elem School 4

490810410252010 Frances Willard Elem School 3

490810410252015 Longfellow Elem School 2

490810410252016 Ridgewood Elem School 3

490810410252017 Thomas Jefferson Elem School 2

490810410252020 Rock Island Academy 3

Rockdale SD 84

560990840022001 Rockdale Elem School 1

Rockford SD 205

041012050250001 Auburn High School 1

041012050250002 Rockford East High School 1

041012050250003 Guilford High School 1

041012050250004 Jefferson High School 1

041012050251001 West Middle School 2

041012050251006 Eisenhower Middle School 1

041012050251008 Bernard W Flinn Middle School 1

041012050251009 Abraham Lincoln Middle School 5

041012050251010 Kennedy Middle School 6

041012050252014 Barbour Two-Way Lang Immersion 4Plenary Packet - Page 156-58

59

041012050252016 Beyer Elem School 5

041012050252017 C Henry Bloom Elem School 1

041012050252019 Clifford P Carlson Elem School 1

04101205025201C Legacy Acad of Excellence Charter 1

041012050252020 Cherry Valley Elem School 1

041012050252022 Conklin Elem School 5

041012050252024 Ellis Arts Academy 12

041012050252029 Gregory Elem School 1

04101205025202C Galapagos Rockford Charter Sch 1

041012050252034 Haskell Academy 3

041012050252037 Swan Hillman Elem School 4

041012050252040 Kishwaukee Elem School 4

041012050252041 Julia Lathrop Elem School 12

041012050252043 McIntosh Science and Tech Magnet 8

041012050252046 Wm Nashold Elem School 12

041012050252047 John Nelson Elem School 4

041012050252051 Riverdahl Elem School 4

041012050252054 Rolling Green 2

041012050252056 Spring Creek Elem School 2

041012050252059 A C Thompson Elem School 1

041012050252062 Walker Elem School 4

041012050252063 R K Welsh Elem School 3

041012050252064 West View Elem School 5

041012050252066 Whitehead Elem School 5

041012050252080 King Elementary School 2

041012050252082 Marsh Elementary School 4

041012050252084 Lewis Lemon Elementary 6

041012050252085 Montessori Elementary School 1

041012050252086 Rockford Envrnmntl Science Acad 6

Rossville-Alvin CUSD 7

540920070262001 Rossville-Alvin Elem School 1

Round Lake CUSD 116

340491160262001 Raymond Ellis Elem School 4

340491160262002 Indian Hill Elem School 4

340491160262004 Round Lake Beach Elem School 4

340491160262005 W J Murphy Elem School 3

340491160262006 Village Elementary School 3

Roxana CUSD 1

410570010261001 Roxana Junior High School 6

410570010262006 South Roxana Elem School 1

Salem CHSD 600

130586000160001 Salem Community High School 4

Salem SD 111

130581110022005 Franklin Park Middle School 2

Sandoval CUSD 501

130585010262002 Sandoval Elem School 3

Sandridge SD 172

070161720022001 Sandridge Elem School 3

Sandwich CUSD 430

160194300262007 Herman E Dummer 2

Saratoga CCSD 60C

24032060C042001 Saratoga Elem School 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-59

60

Schaumburg CCSD 54

050160540042018 Lakeview Elem School 3

Schiller Park SD 81

060160810022001 John F Kennedy Elem School 2


Schuyler-Industry CUSD 5

220850050261002 Schuyler Industry Middle Sch 1

SD 45 DuPage County

190220450021007 Jefferson Middle School 1


190220450022011 Schafer Elem School 4

190220450022015 York Center Elem School 1

190220450022016 Stevenson School 2

SD U-46

310450460220001 Elgin High School 2

310450460220002 Larkin High School 2

310450460220003 Streamwood High School 2

310450460221003 Abbott Middle School 2

310450460221005 Ellis Middle School 2

310450460221006 Kimball Middle School 2

310450460221007 Larsen Middle School 2

310450460221045 Canton Middle School 2


310450460222010 Century Oaks Elem School 2

310450460222011 Channing Memorial Elem School 4

310450460222013 Coleman Elem School 2


310450460222016 Harriet Gifford Elem School 2

310450460222020 Highland Elem School 4

310450460222021 Hillcrest Elem School 4

310450460222022 Huff Elem School 4

310450460222024 Laurel Hill Elem School 4

310450460222025 Lowrie Elem School 3


310450460222027 Oakhill Elem School 2

310450460222028 Ontarioville Elem School 2

310450460222029 Parkwood Elem School 4

310450460222031 Ridge Circle Elem School 2

310450460222032 Sheridan Elem School 4

310450460222034 Sunnydale Elem School 2


310450460222042 Heritage Elem School 2

310450460222044 Lords Park Elem School 4

Seneca Twp HSD 160

350501600170001 Seneca High School 3

Shawnee CUSD 84

020910840261002 Shawnee Jr High School 1

Shiloh CUSD 1

110230010262002 Shiloh Elementary School 2

Silvis SD 34

490810340022003 George O Barr School 3Plenary Packet - Page 156-60

61

Skokie SD 68

050160680021002 Old Orchard Jr High School 3

Skokie SD 69

050160690022001 Thomas Edison Elem School 3

050160690022004 Madison Elem School 4

Smithton CCSD 130

500821300042001 Smithton Elem School 1

South Central CUD 401

130584010261001 South Central Middle School 4

130584010262002 South Central Elementary-Kinmundy 1

South Holland SD 150


South Holland SD 151

070161510021001 Coolidge Middle School 12

070161510022002 Eisenhower School 3

070161510022004 Madison School 6

South Pekin SD 137

530901370022001 South Pekin Elem School 2

Sparta CUSD 140

450791400262002 Sparta-Lincoln Middle School 3

450791400262007 Sparta Primary Attendance Center 2

450791400262008 Evansville Attendance Center 2

Spring Valley CCSD 99

280060990042002 John F Kennedy Elem School 3

Springfield SD 186


510841860252010 Jane Addams Elem School 1

510841860252013 Black Hawk Elem School 4

510841860252015 Dubois Elem School 3

510841860252016 Enos Elem School 12

510841860252017 Fairview Elem School 3

510841860252022 Laketown Elem School 2

510841860252027 Matheny-Withrow Elem Sch 3

510841860252028 McClernand Elem School 5


510841860252032 Ridgely Elem School 3

510841860252035 Southern View Elem School 3

510841860252037 Wanless Elem School 2

510841860252042 Jefferson Middle School 2

510841860252044 Harvard Park Elem School 4

510841860252045 Edwin A Lee Elementary School 4

510841860252046 Elizabeth Graham Elem School 3

St Anne CHSD 302

320463020160001 St Anne Comm High School 13

St Charles CUSD 303

310453030262006 Richmond Intermediate Sch 1

St Elmo CUSD 202

030262020262001 St Elmo Elem School 2

St Joseph Ogden CHSD 305Plenary Packet - Page 156-61

62

090103050160001 St Joseph-Ogden High School 2

Steeleville CUSD 138

450791380262002 Steeleville Elem School 1

Steger SD 194

070161940022002 Eastview Elem School 2

070161940022004 Parkview Elem School 2

070161940022005 Saukview Elem School 2

Sterling CUSD 5



Streator ESD 44

350500440022001 Centennial Elem School 1

350500440022003 Kimes Elem School 1

350500440022006 Oakland Park Elem School 2

350500440022007 Sherman Elem School 1

Streator Twp HSD 40

350500400170001 Streator Twp High School 5

Summit SD 104


070161040022001 Dr Donald Wharton Elem School 3

070161040022003 Otis P Graves Elem School 4

070161040022004 W W Walker Elem School 2

070161040022005 Walsh Elem School 1

Sunnybrook SD 171


070161710022001 Nathan Hale Elem School 3

Sycamore CUSD 427

160194270261002 Sycamore Middle School 2

160194270262007 South Prairie Elementary School 1

160194270262008 North Grove Elementary School 1

Taft SD 90

560990900022001 Taft Grade School 1

Tamaroa School Dist 5

300730050022001 Tamaroa Elem School 2

Taylorville CUSD 3

100110030262001 Memorial Elem School 2

Thompsonville CUSD 174

210281740260001 Thompsonville High School 3

Thornton Fractional Twp HSD 215

070162150170001 Thornton Fractnl No High School 7

070162150170002 Thornton Fractnl So High School 3

Thornton Twp HSD 205

070162050170001 Thornton Township High School 10

070162050170002 Thornridge High School 10

070162050170003 Thornwood High School 10

Tinley Park CCSD 146

070161460042003 Memorial Elem School 1Plenary Packet - Page 156-62

63

Township HSD 211

050162110170003 Palatine High School 2

050162110170006 Hoffman Estates High School 2

Township HSD 214

050162140170002 Elk Grove High School 2

050162140170006 Wheeling High School 2

050162140170007 Rolling Meadows High School 2

Tri City CUSD 1

510840010261001 Tri-City Jr High School 1

Tri Point CUSD 6-J

17053006J262005 Tri Point Elementary School 1

Trico CUSD 176

300391760260001 Trico Senior High School 1

300391760261001 Trico Jr High School 1

300391760262008 Trico Elementary School 3

Twp HSD 113

340491130170002 Highland Park High School 9

Union SD 81

560990810022001 Union Elementary School 1

United Twp HSD 30

490810300170001 United Twp High School 10

Urbana SD 116

090101160222004 M L King Jr Elem School 1

090101160222005 Leal Elem School 3

090101160222007 Prairie Elem School 2

090101160222008 Thomas Paine Elem School 1

090101160222013 Wiley Elementary School 1

V I T CUSD 2

220290020262006 V I T Elementary School 1

Valley View CUSD 365U

56099365U261006 Hubert H Humphrey Middle School 4

56099365U262002 Irene King Elem School 5

56099365U262003 Bernard J Ward Elem School 4

56099365U262006 John R Tibbott Elem School 4

56099365U262008 Wood View Elem School 2

56099365U262009 Independence Elem School 3

56099365U262010 Jonas E Salk Elem School 2

56099365U262012 Oak View Elem School 2

56099365U262016 Skoff Elementary 3

Valmeyer CUSD 3

450670030260001 Valmeyer High School 2

Vandalia CUSD 203

030262030261002 Vandalia Junior High School 6

030262030262008 Vandalia Elementary School 4

Venice CUSD 3

410570030262002 Venice Elem School 12

Vienna HSD 133Plenary Packet - Page 156-63

64

020441330170001 Vienna High School 4

Villa Grove CUSD 302

110213020262001 Villa Grove Elem School 1

W Harvey-Dixmoor PSD 147

070161470021001 Rosa L Parks Middle School 12



Wabash CUSD 348

200933480261003 Mt Carmel Middle School 2

200933480262005 North Intermediate Ctr of Educ 5

Waltonville CUSD 1

250410010262002 Waltonville Grade School 2

Warren CUSD 205

080432050260001 Warren Jr/Sr High School 1

Warren Twp HSD 121

340491210170001 Warren Township High School 8

Warsaw CUSD 316

260343160262003 Warsaw Elem School 1

Washington CHSD 308

530903080160001 Washington Comm High School 3

Washington SD 52


Wauconda CUSD 118

340491180262001 Wauconda Grade School 4

Waukegan CUSD 60

340490600261001 Jack Benny Middle School 12

340490600261002 Thomas Jefferson Middle School 9

340490600261003 Daniel Webster Middle School 12

340490600261004 Robert E Abbott Middle School 12

340490600261005 Miguel Juarez Middle School 12

340490600262004 Carman-Buckner Elem School 4

340490600262005 John S Clark Elem School 1

340490600262006 Andrew Cooke Magnet Elem School 1

340490600262007 Clearview Elem School 12

340490600262008 Glen Flora Elem School 12

340490600262009 Glenwood Elementary School 3

340490600262010 Greenwood Elem School 2

340490600262011 Hyde Park Elem School 4

340490600262013 Little Fort Elem School 9

340490600262014 Lyon Magnet Elementary School 4

340490600262015 H R McCall Elem School 3


340490600262017 Oakdale Elem School 4



Wayne City CUSD 100

200961000262005 Wayne City Attendance Center 1

Webber Twp HSD 204

250412040170001 Webber Twp High School 5Plenary Packet - Page 156-64

65

West Chicago ESD 33

190220330022001 Gary Elementary School 4

190220330022002 Indian Knoll Elem School 2

190220330022004 Pioneer Elem School 4

190220330022005 Turner Elem School 4

190220330022006 Currier Elementary School 4

190220330022007 Wegner Elementary School 3

West Richland CUSD 2

120800020262002 West Richland Elementary School 1

Westchester SD 92-5

060160925022002 Westchester Intermediate School 2

Western CUSD 12

010750120261001 Western Jr High School 1

010750120262001 Western Barry Elem 1

Westville CUSD 2

540920020262001 Judith Giacoma Elem School 3

Wheeling CCSD 21

050160210041006 Oliver W Holmes Middle School 2

050160210042003 Eugene Field Elem School 2

050160210042004 Robert Frost Elem School 2

050160210042007 Joyce Kilmer Elem School 1

050160210042014 Mark Twain Elem School 2

050160210042015 Walt Whitman Elem School 2

Whiteside SD 115

500821150022001 Whiteside Elem School 3

Winchester CUSD 1

460860010262002 Winchester Elem School 2

Wood Dale SD 7

190220070022002 Oakbrook Elem School 2

Wood River-Hartford ESD 15

410570150032002 Lewis-Clark Elem School 1

410570150032004 Hartford Elem School 1

Woodlawn CHSD 205

250412050160001 Woodlawn Comm High School 3

Woodstock CUSD 200

440632000262003 Dean Street Elem School 3

440632000262007 Olson Elementary School 2

440632000262008 Mary Endres Elementary School 4

440632000262010 Prairiewood Elem Sch 3

Yorkville CUSD 115

240471150262009 Autumn Creek Elem Sch 1

Zeigler-Royalton CUSD 188

210281880260001 Zeigler-Royalton High School 5

210281880261001 Zeigler-Royalton Jr High School 1

210281880262003 Zeigler-Royalton Elem School 2

Zion ESD 6

340490060021001 Zion Central Middle School 4Plenary Packet - Page 156-65

66

340490060022002 East Elementary School 3

340490060022005 Shiloh Park Elem School 1

340490060022006 West Elementary School 3

340490060022008 Elmwood Elem School 4

Zion-Benton Twp HSD 126

340491260170001 Zion-Benton Twnshp Hi Sch 9


67

Below is a list of the Title I funded districts in the State that are in Federal Improvement Status as defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Out of 866 districts statewide, 833 are Title I districts of which 433 districts or 50.0 percent (of all the districts) are in Federal Improvement Status.

FEDERAL DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT STATUS

Years in Improvement

District IDDistrict Name

Addison SD 4 190220040 9

Allen-Otter Creek CCSD 65 350500650 1

Alsip-Hazlgrn-Oaklwn SD 126 070161260 2

Alton CUSD 11 410570110 9

Anna Jonesboro CHSD 81 020910810 5

Antioch CCSD 34 340490340 1

Arcola CUSD 306 110213060 1

Argo CHSD 217 070162170 5

Armstrong Twp HSD 225 540922250 5

Arthur CUSD 305 110213050 1

Atwood Hammond CUSD 39 390740390 1

Atwood Heights SD 125 070161250 1

Auburn CUSD 10 510840100 9

Aurora East USD 131 310451310 9

Aurora West USD 129 310451290 9

Ball Chatham CUSD 5 510840050 1

Barrington CUSD 220 340492200 2

Bartonville SD 66 480720660 1

Batavia USD 101 310451010 2

Beach Park CCSD 3 340490030 3

Beardstown CUSD 15 460090150 9

Belleville SD 118 500821180 1

Belleville Twp HSD 201 500822010 9

Bellwood SD 88 060160880 9

Belvidere CUSD 100 040041000 9

Bement CUSD 5 390740050 1

Bensenville SD 2 190220020 1

Benton CCSD 47 210280470 2

Benton Cons HSD 103 210281030 4

Berkeley SD 87 060160870 9

Berwyn North SD 98 060160980 6

Berwyn South SD 100 060161000 1

Bethalto CUSD 8 410570080 4

Bethel SD 82 250410820 1

Bloom Twp HSD 206 070162060 9

Bloomington SD 87 170640870 9 Plenary Packet - Page 156-67

68

Bond County CUSD 2 030030020 1

Bourbonnais SD 53 320460530 2

Braceville SD 75 240320750 1

Bradley Bourbonnais CHSD 307 320463070 4

Bradley SD 61 320460610 3

Bremen CHSD 228 070162280 9

Brooklyn UD 188 500821880 9

Brookwood SD 167 070161670 9

Buncombe Cons SD 43 020440430 1

Burbank SD 111 070161110 2

Bureau Valley CUSD 340 280063400 2

Burnham SD 154-5 070161545 3

Bushnell Prairie City CUSD 170 260621700 4

Cahokia CUSD 187 500821870 9

Cairo USD 1 020020010 9

Calumet City SD 155 070161550 9

Calumet Public SD 132 070161320 2

Canton Union SD 66 220290660 4

Carbon Cliff-Barstow SD 36 490810360 3

Carbondale CHSD 165 300391650 9

Carbondale ESD 95 300390950 3

Carlinville CUSD 1 400560010 1

Carlyle CUSD 1 130140010 1

Carmi-White County CUSD 5 200970050 9

Carrier Mills-Stonefort CUSD 2 200830020 3

Carterville CUSD 5 211000050 1

CCSD 168 070161680 5

CCSD 180 190221800 2

CCSD 62 050160620 3

CCSD 89 190220890 2

Central A & M CUD 21 110870210 1

Central CHSD 71 130140710 3

Central CUSD 3 010010030 1

Central CUSD 301 310453010 2

Central CUSD 4 320380040 9

Centralia HSD 200 130582000 9

Champaign CUSD 4 090100040 9

Chaney-Monge SD 88 560990880 2

Charleston CUSD 1 110150010 1

Chester CUSD 139 450791390 9

Chicago Heights SD 170 070161700 9

Chicago Ridge SD 127-5 070161275 2

Christopher USD 99 210280990 2

CHSD 117 340491170 9Plenary Packet - Page 156-68

69

CHSD 128 340491280 2

CHSD 218 070162180 9

CHSD 94 190220940 5

CHSD 99 190220990 1

Cicero SD 99 060160990 9

City of Chicago SD 299 150162990 9

Clinton CUSD 15 170200150 1

Cobden SUD 17 020910170 1

Collinsville CUSD 10 410570100 9

Colona SD 190 280371900 2

Comm Cons SD 59 050160590 2

Cons SD 158 440631580 1

Cook County SD 130 070161300 9

Coulterville USD 1 450790010 1

Country Club Hills SD 160 070161600 9

County of Winnebago SD 320 041013200 1

County of Woodford School 431021220 2

Cowden-Herrick CUSD 3A 11087003A 1

Creston CCSD 161 470711610 1

Crete Monee CUSD 201U 56099201U 9

Creve Coeur SD 76 530900760 2

Crystal Lake CCSD 47 440630470 3

Cumberland CUSD 77 110180770 1

CUSD 200 190222000 2

CUSD 3 Fulton County 220290030 1

CUSD 300 310453000 4

CUSD 4 010010040 1

Dallas ESD 327 260343270 2

Danville CCSD 118 540921180 9

Darien SD 61 190220610 1

Decatur SD 61 390550610 9

DeKalb CUSD 428 160194280 4

DePue USD 103 280061030 3

Dixon USD 170 470521700 4

Dodds CCSD 7 250410070 1

Dolton SD 148 070161480 9

Dolton SD 149 070161490 9

Dongola USD 66 020910660 1

DuPage HSD 88 190220880 9

Duquoin CUSD 300 300733000 2

Dwight Twp HSD 230 170532300 1

East Alton SD 13 410570130 9

East Alton-Wood River CHSD 14 410570140 9

East Dubuque USD 119 080431190 1Plenary Packet - Page 156-69

70

East Maine SD 63 050160630 3

East Moline SD 37 490810370 4

East Peoria CHSD 309 530903090 6

East Richland CUSD 1 120800010 2

East St Louis SD 189 500821890 9

Edinburg CUSD 4 100110040 1

Edwards County CUSD 1 200240010 1

Edwardsville CUSD 7 410570070 2

Effingham CUSD 40 030250400 2

Egyptian CUSD 5 020020050 9

Eldorado CUSD 4 200830040 9

Elmhurst SD 205 190222050 1

Elverado CUSD 196 300391960 1

Elwood CCSD 203 560992030 1

ESD 159 070161590 1

Evanston CCSD 65 050160650 4

Evanston Twp HSD 202 050162020 9

Evergreen Park CHSD 231 070162310 3

Evergreen Park ESD 124 070161240 2

Fairfield Comm H S Dist 225 200962250 4

Fairmont SD 89 560990890 4

Fenton CHSD 100 190221000 9

Field CCSD 3 250410030 1

Flora CUSD 35 120130350 1

Flossmoor SD 161 070161610 9

Ford Heights SD 169 070161690 3

Frankfort CUSD 168 210281680 3

Franklin Park SD 84 060160840 2

Freeburg CHSD 77 500820770 2

Freeport SD 145 080891450 3

Galatia CUSD 1 200830010 1

Galesburg CUSD 205 330482050 9

Gallatin CUSD 7 200300070 1

Galva CUSD 224 280372240 1

Gardner S Wilmington Twp HSD 73 240320730 3

Gen George Patton SD 133 070161330 9

Geneseo CUSD 228 280372280 9

Genoa Kingston CUSD 424 160194240 1

Georgetown-Ridge Farm CUD 4 540920040 9

Gillespie CUSD 7 400560070 9

Glen Ellyn SD 41 190220410 1

Glenbard Twp HSD 87 190220870 9

Granite City CUSD 9 410570090 9

Grant CCSD 110 500821100 1Plenary Packet - Page 156-70

71

Grant CHSD 124 340491240 4

Grayslake CCSD 46 340490460 1

Grayville CUSD 1 200970010 1

Greenfield CUSD 10 400310100 1

Griggsville-Perry CUSD 4 010750040 1

Gurnee SD 56 340490560 1

Hall HSD 502 280065020 5

Hamilton CCSD 328 260343280 1

Hamilton Co CUSD 10 250330100 4

Hardin County CUSD 1 200350010 2

Harlem UD 122 041011220 9

Harrisburg CUSD 3 200830030 3

Harrison SD 36 440630360 1

Harvard CUSD 50 440630500 9

Harvey SD 152 070161520 9

Havana CUSD 126 380601260 9

Hawthorn CCSD 73 340490730 2

Hazel Crest SD 152-5 070161525 1

Herrin CUSD 4 211000040 2

Highland CUSD 5 410570050 9

Hillsboro CUSD 3 100680030 3

Hillside SD 93 060160930 6

Hinsdale Twp HSD 86 190220860 9

Hononegah CHD 207 041012070 3

Hoopeston Area CUSD 11 540920110 4

Hoover-Schrum Memorial SD 157 070161570 2

Il Valley Central USD 321 480723210 1

Illini Central CUSD 189 380601890 9

Illini West H S Dist 307 260343070 3

Ina CCSD 8 250410080 2

Indian Prairie CUSD 204 190222040 2

Indian Springs SD 109 070161090 9

Iroquois County CUSD 9 320380090 1

Iroquois West CUSD 10 320380100 2

J S Morton HSD 201 060162010 9

Jacksonville SD 117 460691170 3

Jasper County CUD 1 120400010 9

Jersey CUSD 100 400421000 2

Johnston City CUSD 1 211000010 9

Joliet PSD 86 560990860 9

Joliet Twp HSD 204 560992040 9

Jonesboro CCSD 43 020910430 1

Kaneland CUSD 302 310453020 1

Kankakee SD 111 320461110 9Plenary Packet - Page 156-71

72

Keeneyville SD 20 190220200 9

Kewanee CUSD 229 280372290 2

La Moille CUSD 303 280063030 1

La Salle ESD 122 350501220 1

La Salle-Peru Twp HSD 120 350501200 6

Lake Forest CHSD 115 340491150 1

Lake Park CHSD 108 190221080 9

Lake Zurich CUSD 95 340490950 1

Lansing SD 158 070161580 9

Laraway CCSD 70C 56099070C 3

Lebanon CUSD 9 500820090 1

Lemont Twp HSD 210 070162100 2

Lewistown CUSD 97 220290970 1

Leyden CHSD 212 060162120 7

Limestone CHSD 310 480723100 5

Lincoln CHSD 404 380544040 3

Lincoln ESD 156 070161560 2

Lincoln ESD 27 380540270 1

Lincoln Way CHSD 210 560992100 9

Lincolnwood SD 74 050160740 2

Lindop SD 92 060160920 2

Litchfield CUSD 12 100680120 1

Lockport Twp HSD 205 560992050 2

Lombard SD 44 190220440 2

Lowpoint-Washburn CUSD 21 431020210 1

Ludlow CCSD 142 090101420 1

Lyons SD 103 060161030 3

Lyons Twp HSD 204 060162040 2

Macomb CUSD 185 260621850 1

Madison CUSD 12 410570120 9

Mahomet-Seymour CUSD 3 090100030 1

Maine Township HSD 207 050162070 9

Mannheim SD 83 060160830 9

Manteno CUSD 5 320460050 1

Marengo CHSD 154 440631540 4

Marion CUSD 2 211000020 2

Marissa CUSD 40 500820400 2

Marquardt SD 15 190220150 4

Marseilles ESD 150 350501500 1

Mascoutah CUD 19 500820190 1

Massac UD 1 020610010 9

Matteson ESD 162 070161620 2

Mattoon CUSD 2 110150020 1

Maywood-Melrose Park-Broadview 89 060160890 9Plenary Packet - Page 156-72

73

McHenry CCSD 15 440630150 4

McHenry CHSD 156 440631560 9

McLean County USD 5 170640050 3

Mendota CCSD 289 350502890 2

Mendota Twp HSD 280 350502800 4

Meredosia-Chambersburg CUSD 11 460690110 1

Meridian CUSD 101 020771010 4

Midlothian SD 143 070161430 9

Midwest Central CUSD 191 380601910 9

Mokena SD 159 560991590 1

Moline USD 40 490810400 9

Monmouth-Roseville CUSD 238 270942380 3

Morris CHSD 101 240321010 4

Morris SD 54 240320540 1

Morrison CUSD 6 550980060 1

Morton Grove SD 70 050160700 1

Mount Prospect SD 57 050160570 1

Mount Vernon SD 80 250410800 9

Mt Vernon Twp HSD 201 250412010 6

Mulberry Grove CUSD 1 030030010 1

Mundelein Cons HSD 120 340491200 6

Murphysboro CUSD 186 300391860 9

Naperville CUSD 203 190222030 2

Nashville CCSD 49 130950490 1

Nashville CHSD 99 130950990 3

Niles Twp CHSD 219 050162190 9

Nippersink SD 2 440630020 1

Nokomis CUSD 22 100680220 2

North Boone CUSD 200 040042000 2

North Chicago SD 187 340491870 7

North Clay CUSD 25 120130250 1

North Greene CUSD 3 400310030 9

North Shore SD 112 340491120 1

Northfield Twp HSD 225 050162250 5

O Fallon Twp HSD 203 500822030 5

Oak Lawn CHSD 229 070162290 5

Oak Park - River Forest SD 200 060162000 6

Oak Park ESD 97 060160970 1

Olympia CUSD 16 170640160 1

Orland SD 135 070161350 1

Oswego CUSD 308 240473080 9

Ottawa ESD 141 350501410 9

Ottawa Twp HSD 140 350501400 7

Palatine CCSD 15 050160150 4Plenary Packet - Page 156-73

74

Pana CUSD 8 100110080 2

Paris-Union SD 95 110230950 1

Park Forest SD 163 070161630 2

Paxton-Buckley-Loda CUD 10 090270100 9

Pekin CSD 303 530903030 7

Pekin PSD 108 530901080 1

Pembroke CCSD 259 320462590 1

Peoria Heights CUSD 325 480723250 9

Peoria SD 150 480721500 9

Peotone CUSD 207U 56099207U 1

Pikeland CUSD 10 010750100 1

Pinckneyville CHSD 101 300731010 3

Pinckneyville SD 50 300730500 1

Plainfield SD 202 560992020 2

Plano CUSD 88 240470880 9

Pleasant Hill SD 69 480720690 2

Pontiac CCSD 429 170534290 1

Pontiac Twp HSD 90 170530900 5

Pope Co CUD 1 200760010 2

Porta CUSD 202 380652020 1

Posen-Robbins ESD 143-5 070161435 9

Prairie Central CUSD 8 170530080 1

Prairie-Hills ESD 144 070161440 9

Princeton ESD 115 280061150 9

Princeton HSD 500 280065000 4

Prophetstown-Lyndon-Tampico CUSD3 550980030 9

Proviso Twp HSD 209 060162090 9

Putnam County CUSD 535 430785350 9

Queen Bee SD 16 190220160 9

Quincy SD 172 010011720 3

Raccoon Cons SD 1 130580010 2

Ramsey CUSD 204 030262040 1

Rantoul City SD 137 090101370 7

Rantoul Township HSD 193 090101930 1

Reavis Twp HSD 220 070162200 4

Red Hill CUSD 10 120510100 1

Rhodes SD 84-5 060160845 4

Rich Twp HSD 227 070162270 9

Richland GSD 88A 56099088A 2

Ridgeland SD 122 070161220 3

Ridgeview CUSD 19 170640190 1

Ridgewood CHSD 234 060162340 5

River Bend CUSD 2 550980020 9

Riverside-Brookfield Twp SD 208 060162080 2Plenary Packet - Page 156-74

75

Riverton CUSD 14 510840140 2

Riverview CCSD 2 431020020 1

Robinson CUSD 2 120170020 1

Rochelle CCSD 231 470712310 1

Rochelle Twp HSD 212 470712120 6

Rock Falls ESD 13 550980130 1

Rock Falls Twp HSD 301 550983010 5

Rock Island SD 41 490810410 9

Rockdale SD 84 560990840 1

Rockford SD 205 041012050 9

Rossville-Alvin CUSD 7 540920070 1

Round Lake CUSD 116 340491160 9

Roxana CUSD 1 410570010 9

Salem CHSD 600 130586000 4

Sandoval CUSD 501 130585010 1

Sandridge SD 172 070161720 3

Sandwich CUSD 430 160194300 2

Sangamon Valley CUSD 9 390550090 1

Saratoga CCSD 60C 24032060C 2

Schuyler-Industry CUSD 5 220850050 1

SD 45 DuPage County 190220450 2

SD U-46 310450460 9

Seneca Twp HSD 160 350501600 4

Sesser-Valier CUSD 196 210281960 9

Shawnee CUSD 84 020910840 1

Sherrard CUSD 200 490812000 9

Silvis SD 34 490810340 1

Skokie SD 69 050160690 3

Smithton CCSD 130 500821300 1

South Fork SD 14 100110140 1

South Holland SD 151 070161510 9

South Pekin SD 137 530901370 2

Southwestern CUSD 9 400560090 2

Sparta CUSD 140 450791400 9

Spoon River Valley CUSD 4 220290040 1

Spring Valley CCSD 99 280060990 2

Springfield SD 186 510841860 9

St Anne CHSD 302 320463020 9

St Charles CUSD 303 310453030 2

St Elmo CUSD 202 030262020 1

St Joseph Ogden CHSD 305 090103050 2

Steger SD 194 070161940 2

Sterling CUSD 5 550980050 2

Streator ESD 44 350500440 1Plenary Packet - Page 156-75

76

Streator Twp HSD 40 350500400 5

Summit SD 104 070161040 3

Sunnybrook SD 171 070161710 2

Sycamore CUSD 427 160194270 2

Taft SD 90 560990900 1

Tamaroa School Dist 5 300730050 2

Taylorville CUSD 3 100110030 1

Thornton Fractional Twp HSD 215 070162150 7

Thornton Twp HSD 205 070162050 9

Township HSD 211 050162110 2

Township HSD 214 050162140 2

Tri City CUSD 1 510840010 1

Tri Point CUSD 6-J 17053006J 1

Triad CUSD 2 410570020 1

Trico CUSD 176 300391760 9

Troy CCSD 30C 56099030C 2

Twp HSD 113 340491130 9

Union SD 81 560990810 1

United Twp HSD 30 490810300 9

Urbana SD 116 090101160 9

Valley View CUSD 365U 56099365U 9

Vandalia CUSD 203 030262030 9

Venice CUSD 3 410570030 9

Vienna HSD 133 020441330 4

W Harvey-Dixmoor PSD 147 070161470 9

Wabash CUSD 348 200933480 2

Warren Twp HSD 121 340491210 7

Washington CHSD 308 530903080 3

Wauconda CUSD 118 340491180 3

Waukegan CUSD 60 340490600 9

Webber Twp HSD 204 250412040 5

West Chicago ESD 33 190220330 9

Western CUSD 12 010750120 1

Westville CUSD 2 540920020 2

Wethersfield CUSD 230 280372300 1

Wheeling CCSD 21 050160210 2

Whiteside SD 115 500821150 2

Winnebago CUSD 323 041013230 1

Wood River-Hartford ESD 15 410570150 9

Woodland CCSD 50 340490500 3

Woodlawn CHSD 205 250412050 3

Woodstock CUSD 200 440632000 5

Zeigler-Royalton CUSD 188 210281880 2

Zion ESD 6 340490060 4Plenary Packet - Page 156-76

77

Zion-Benton Twp HSD 126 340491260 9



TO: Illinois State Board of Education FROM: Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D., State Superintendent of Education Susan C. Morrison, Deputy Superintendent/ Chief Education Officer Agenda Topic: Survey of Learning Conditions: Illinois 5Essentials Survey Materials: Illinois 5Essentials Survey Overview Staff Contact(s): Peter Godard, Chief Performance Officer Purpose of Agenda Item To inform the Board about the Illinois 5Essentials Survey which will be implemented in Spring 2013 in response to several legislative mandates. Relationship to/Implications for the State Board’s Strategic Plan Goal 3: Every school will offer a safe and healthy learning environment for all students. Expected Outcome(s) of Agenda Item The Board will have an understanding of what the Illinois 5Essentials survey measures, how it will be implemented, and Background Information Responding to legislation that requires a survey of learning conditions for all schools in Illinois, ISBE has selected the University of Chicago’s 5Essentials Survey through competitive procurement. The Illinois 5Essentials Survey will be implemented for the first time in the Spring of 2013 during the months of February and March. Schools will receive survey results in June, and the data will be featured on the new State School Report Card that will be published in October. The on-line surveys will collect data from students in grades six through twelve and all teachers. Combined, these survey results will provide measures for effective leaders, collaborative leaders, involved families, supportive environment, effective leaders, and ambitious instruction. An optional on-line parent survey will also be made available for district use. The survey instruments are research validated and are currently in use in districts with as few as one and as many as 650 schools. Planned Use of 5Essentials Data The primary use for Illinois 5Essentials Survey data is school improvement planning. The tool will provide valuable feedback to school communities for this purpose from the perspective of teachers and students. The 5Essentials Survey data will also be prominently featured on the new State School Report Card. In addition, pending guidance from the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council, some districts may choose to use Illinois 5Essentials Survey data for the purposes of principal evaluation. ISBE’s application for an ESEA wavier also allowed for bonus points to be awarded in the Multiple Measure Index (MMI) for schools with exceptional survey results. Survey responses will be completely anonymous, and thus will not and cannot be used in personnel decisions by the principal.


Research Basis for the 5Essentials Survey The 5Essentials Survey was developed over a period of many years by researchers at the Chicago Consortium on School Research. Their research demonstrates that the 5Essentials like the highly aligned essential elements in the Rising Star framework, predict future school success. Schools that are strong on three or more of the five essentials are ten times more likely to improve substantially compared to schools weak on the 5Essentials. Analysis: N/A Policy Implications: N/A Budget Implications: The implementation of the Illinois 5Essentials Survey is fully financed this year with Race to the Top grant funds, and Race to the Top grant funds are available for the next two years to support the cost of survey tool licensing. Additional resources may be needed in the future to support survey implementation. Legislative Action: N/A Communication: ISBE has hosted a webinar to begin the process of communicating with districts about the Illinois 5Essentials Survey. Additional webinars and outreach from our partners at the University of Chicago are planned throughout the course of the fall. Pros and Cons of Various Actions This is an information item, no action is needed. Superintendent’s Recommendation This is an information item, no recommendation is needed.


Documents

Illinois State Board of Education Meeting Packet - October ... · The General Assembly will return to Springfield for the Fall Veto Session November 27-29 and December 4-6. 2012 Veto