The Illinois School Board Journal, March/April 2015

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 1 5 Vol. 83, No. 2

Administrator Salaries PART II:

Salaries reflect regional disparities

P L U S : H I G H S T A K E S T E S T I N G • P R E P A R I N G F O R P A R C C , P E R A

W hether you are a new board

member reading the maga-

zine for the first time, or one of many

continuing your service, welcome to

the March/April issue of The Illinois

School Board Journal. New board

members will soon realize what vet-

erans already know — there will be

much to learn and tough questions

to tackle. Public education in Illinois

is dynamic.

For example, as you read this,

the first round of Partnership for the

Assessment of Readiness for College

and Careers (PARCC) assessments

is underway. In January, PARCC

was breaking news nationally. As

implementation approached, some

states dropped out. Some school

districts balked and other school

leaders expressed serious concerns

even as they pressed on with PARCC.

The Illinois State Board of Educa-

tion sent a letter to board presidents

and superintendents, reiterating Illi-

nois’ commitment. At press time,

the headlines had subsided but the

realities of PARCC will not come fully

into focus for months — or years.

Meanwhile, two school districts

shared stories of working towards

successful implementation. Unity

Point School District, an elemen-

tary district in Carbondale, began

preparing years ago. By literally

breaking the standards down into

action verbs, the Unity Point team

was able to prepare its teachers and

staff for the assessment without

“starting over” with its curriculum.

Read more about Unity Point’s efforts

in “Transitioning to Common Core

State Standards: One district’s story”

starting on page 17.

Plainfield Community Consol-

idated School District 202 actively

approached the challenge of inform-

ing its community about Common

Core. The team developed a commu-

nication plan, highlighted by a “Road

Map” and a continuing series of com-

munity events. Read “Connecting

Common Core with the community”

on page 12 to discover how and why

District 202 carried out this plan.

Another consideration as PARCC

approaches is how high-stakes test-

ing data is used and disseminated.

Public school stakeholders must

understand that new standards

present challenges to teaching and

learning. The first rounds of data will

reflect those challenges. Beyond that,

in “A buyer’s guide to high-stakes

test data” on page 20, researcher and

statistician Steve Cordogan brings a

note of caution and advises readers to

take media reports on standardized

tests with a grain of salt.

Soon after PARCC hits, so fol-

lows PERA. Implementation of the

Performance Evaluation Reform Act,

covering teacher and principal evalu-

ation and employment, begins Sept.

1, 2015 for some districts and one

year later for others. Facilitator Joe

Matula shares the decisions early-im-

plementing districts are making in

“Early PERA implementations strike

similar chords,” starting on page 25.

Finally, as promised, in this

issue of The Journal we bring readers

up-to-date on administrator salaries

and trends within Illinois. Read

“Administrator Salaries, Part II: Cur-

rent salaries reflect regional dispar-

i t ie s” on pa ge 6 . H i r ing a nd

supporting quality superintendents

and administrators is an essential

challenge for boards of education.

This challenge ultimately presents

some of the toughest questions a

board member will consider.

— Theresa Kelly Gegen, Editor

[email protected]

T O P I C S F O R U P C O M I N G I S S U E S

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL (ISSN-0019-221X) is published every other month by the Illinois Association of School Boards, 2921 Baker Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703-5929, telephone 217/528-9688. The IASB regional office is located at One Imperial Place, 1 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148-6120, telephone 630/629-3776. The JOURNAL is supported by the dues of school boards holding active membership in the Illinois Association of School Boards. Copies are mailed to all school board members and the superintendent in each IASB member school district.

Non-member subscription rate: Domestic $18.00 per year. Foreign (including Canada and Mexico) $21.00 per year.

PUBLICATION POLICYIASB believes that the domestic process functions best through frank and open discussion. Material published in the JOURNAL, therefore, often presents divergent and controversial points of view which do not necessarily represent the views or policies of IASB.

James Russell, Associate Executive Director

Theresa Kelly Gegen, Editor

Gary Adkins, Contributing Editor

Heath Hendren, Contributing Editor

Dana Heckrodt, Advertising Manager

Kara Kienzler, Design and Production

@ILschoolboards

www.iasb.com

Vol. 83, No. 2

COVER STORY

6 Administrator Salaries, Part II: Salaries reflect regional disparitiesCurrent administrative salary data in Illinois reflect significant regional differences. Adding supply and demand factors to this data, the authors raise concerns that some areas of the state will have a difficult time filling administrative positions in the future.By Lora Wolff and Dean Halverson

FEATURE ARTICLES

12 Connecting Common Core with the communityA community engagement program is helping Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 reach out to families to ensure stakeholders are “on board” with adapting to Common Core State Standards.By Glenn Wood and Thomas Hernandez

15 Sidebar: State holds firm on PARCC implementation

17 Transitioning to Common Core State Standards: One district’s storyUnity Point School District 140 developed a framework for teachers and staff to incorporate Illinois Learning Standards into the curriculum. Their purpose is to prepare students for this spring’s PARCC implementation — and beyond.By Kerry Glenn, Maria Deaton and Lori James-Gross

20 A buyer’s guide to high-stakes test dataStaying informed about high-stakes testing requires a critical eye. School leaders should become “educated consumers” and consider a source’s accuracy and reliability before forming conclusions about test scores.By Steve Cordogan

25 Early PERA implementations strike similar chordsFacilitator Joe Matula finds common themes in the decisions schools are making as PERA implementation draws near.By Joe Matula

REGULAR FEATURES

Front Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside front cover

Practical PR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Ask the Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside back cover

M A R C H / A P R I L 2 0 1 5

May/June Rural schools face distinct challenges

July/August School board basics, not just for newcomers

2 THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL / MARCH-APRIL 2015

P R A C T I C A L P R

C onnecting with stakeholders

and fostering strong relation-

ships within a school community

are important for all school districts.

In Consolidated High School

District 230 — three large suburban

high schools that serve 156,000 resi-

dents, 65,000 households, 8,500 stu-

dents, 11 municipalities, six partner

school districts and multiple legisla-

tive districts — one of the ways that

challenge is best met is by engaging

liaisons within the community.

Through it s col laborat ive

goal-setting process, the District

230 school board and administration

chose to engage elected officials and

leaders from each of its high school

attendance areas. The purpose was

to share achievements and chal-

lenges, listen to feedback and seek

support in maintaining high quality

learning for all students.

District 230 held three “Com-

munity Connections” events — one

in each high school — and invited

elected officials and leaders from

the host school’s attendance area.

This included school board mem-

bers, superintendents and principals

from partner districts, community

college leaders, mayors, municipal

boards, police and fire chiefs, county

officials, and state legislators. Seg-

menting the events by high school

community resulted in meetings

of 35 to 45 participants, instead of

groups of more than 100 if organized

district-wide. Personal contact by

school board members, following

mailed invitations, proved successful

in engaging elected officials. Turnout

included nearly 100 percent repre-

sentation from governmental units

and agencies.

A 90-minute presentation was

prepared to maintain consistency

across each of the three events:

• Introductions by each partici-

pant, including a personal con-

nection to the host school or

district;

• An overview by the school board

president including geographic

boundaries, school enrollments,

collaborative goal-setting pro-

cesses, and financial highlights;

• A spotlight by the superinten-

dent, focused on academic

accomplishments, social and

emotional learning programs,

and communication and engage-

ment efforts;

• A presentation by the host school

principal and student leaders,

featuring student, staff and

alumni highlights, and a virtual

tour of the school;

• Musical performances by stu-

dents; and

• Time for leaders and students to

interact informally, share stories

and ask questions.

School leaders quickly found

that while most of the attendees —

or a spouse, child or grandchild —

had attended one of the high schools,

many had not been inside the school

in years, or decades in some cases.

They were impressed with the qual-

ity of school facilities, the maturity

and talent of the students, and the

breadth and variety of academic and

co-curricular offerings.

After seeing the school firsthand

and learning about the accomplish-

ments and challenges, attendees

were prepared to share what they

heard with their constituents, many

Carla Erdey

is director of

communications

for Consolidated

High School

District 230,

based in Orland

Park. She is a

past president

of the Illinois

Chapter of the

National School

Public Relations

Association.

Engage elected officials, leaders to build support for schoolsBy Carla Erdey

Columns are submitted by members of the Illinois Chapter of the National School Public Relations Association

MARCH-APRIL 2015 / THE ILLINOIS SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 3

PresidentKaren Fisher

Vice PresidentPhil Pritzker

TreasurerDale Hansen

Immediate Past President Carolyne Brooks

IASB is a voluntary association of local boards of education and is not affiliated with any branch of government.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Abe Lincoln Lisa Weitzel

Blackhawk Jackie Mickley

Central Illinois Valley Thomas Neeley

Cook North Barbara Somogyi

Cook South Val Densmore

Cook West Frank Mott

Corn Belt Mark Harms

DuPage Rosemary Swanson

Egyptian John Metzger

Illini Michelle Skinlo

Kaskaskia Linda Eades

Kishwaukee Mary Stith

Lake Joanne Osmond

Northwest Ben Andersen

Shawnee Roger Pfister

Southwestern Rob Luttrell

Starved Rock Simon Kampwerth Jr.

Three Rivers Dale Hansen

Two Rivers David Barton

Wabash Valley Tim Blair

Western Sue McCance

Chicago Board Jesse Ruiz

Service Associates Glen Eriksson

of whom do not have children in

school.

Each participant was asked to

complete an exit slip to provide feed-

back on the event, to volunteer for

school programs, to join the district’s

email list and to support the district

as it faces the challenges ahead.

The success of Community

Connections is evident in the sup-

port shown at subsequent town hall

meetings related to legislative issues,

through involvement in school pro-

grams, and in the expanded reach of

district communications. Commu-

nity Connections opened the door

to future collaboration and support.

Ultimately, attendees agreed

that schools are a centerpiece of

the community. Successful schools

attract and retain residents and busi-

nesses, prepare the future workforce

and citizens, and are a key to the

success of municipalities, counties,

the state, and our country.

The seating of new officials fol-

lowing local elections provides a

great reason to host similar events.

Veteran and newly elected officials

have an opportunity to interact

across the community, learn about

the successes and challenges of each

district, and become liaisons for

schools, staff and students.

For more information about pub-

lic engagement, including examples

from districts around the country,

check out the National School Public

Relations Association’s resources

at nspra.org/public_engagement. Also,

make sure your district’s commu-

nications professional is a member

of both the national NSPRA (www.

nspra.org) and local INSPRA (www.

inspra.org) organizations.

IASB offers school board mem-

bers opportunities for community

engagement education. To learn

more, start here: www.iasb.com/

training/connecting.cfm.

3


I N S I G H T S

“Our Student and Career Suc-

cess Package will lift the cap on pub-

lic charter schools and give parents

and students more options. Next to

being a parent, teaching is the most

important job in the world. We must

support our many good teachers.

That means putting more resources

directly into classrooms, reforming

the education bureaucracy and roll-

ing back costly mandates.

Our education bureaucracy

stands between state resources and

the classroom. We must find ways to

reduce it. Our students and teachers

today are overwhelmed by too many

tests. We must ensure that the amount

of time we test our students doesn’t get

in the way of high-quality instruction.”

— Governor Bruce Rauner, State of the State address, Springfield, Feb. 4, 2015.

“The potential benefits for

schools transitioning to digital cur-

riculum — specifically, replacing

their print textbooks with digital ones

— remain compelling. As schools

move to the Common Core, and Pluto

shifts in and out of planetary status,

information can be updated on the

fly. Interactive quizzes, comments,

and discussions live within the text

itself. The addition of video, audio and

interactivity allows for multi-modal,

personalized, accessible and inter-

active learning; it’s lightweight for

backpacks; and there are cost savings

down the road from not printing.”

— “Are digital textbooks worth it? Early digital textbook adopters

share their pros and cons,” by Mary Axelson, eSchool News, Daily Tech

News & Innovation, Jan. 28, 2015.

“Simply put, we must implement

the Common Core State Standards.

Therefore, school districts must have

a continuous cycle of reviewing and

revising curriculum based on stan-

dards. A more engaged community

results in improved teaching and

learning. A school district’s commu-

nity engagement program should aim

to improve student achievement by

building trust, confidence and sup-

port with stakeholders. A strong cur-

riculum and community engagement

plan together will produce outstand-

ing results for students.

— “Connecting Common Core with the community,” By Glenn Wood and Thomas Hernandez,

Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202, page 12.

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORRoger L. Eddy, Executive DirectorBenjamin S. Schwarm, Deputy Executive Director

Meetings ManagementCarla S. Bolt, Director

Sandy Boston, Assistant Director

Office of General CounselMelinda Selbee, General CounselKimberly Small, Assistant General Counsel

Executive SearchesDonna Johnson, DirectorDoug Blair, ConsultantThomas Leahy, ConsultantDave Love, Consultant

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESJennifer Feld, Associate Executive Director/Chief Financial Officer

ADVOCACY/ GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSBenjamin S. Schwarm, Deputy Executive DirectorDeanna L. Sullivan, DirectorSusan Hilton, DirectorZach Messersmith, Assistant Director

AdvocacyCynthia Woods, Director

BOARD DEVELOPMENT/TAGDean Langdon, Associate Executive Director

Board DevelopmentSandra Kwasa, Director Nesa Brauer, Consultant Angie Peifer, Consultant

Targeting Achievement through GovernanceSteve Clark, Consultant

COMMUNICATIONS/ PRODUCTION SERVICESJames Russell, Associate Executive DirectorGary W. Adkins, Director/EditorialJennifer Nelson, Director, Information ServicesTheresa Kelly Gegen, Director/ Editorial ServicesHeath Hendren, Assistant Director/ CommunicationsKara Kienzler, Assistant Director/ Production ServicesGerald R. Glaub, Consultant

FIELD SERVICES/POLICY SERVICESCathy A. Talbert, Associate Executive DirectorField ServicesLarry Dirks, DirectorPerry Hill IV, DirectorLaura Martinez, DirectorReatha Owen, DirectorPatrick Rice, DirectorBarbara B. Toney, Director

Policy ServicesAnna Lovern, DirectorNancy Bohl, ConsultantBrian Zumpf, Consultant

IASB OFFICES

2921 Baker Drive Springfield, Illinois 62703-5929 217/528-9688 Fax 217/528-2831

www.iasb.com

One Imperial Place1 East 22nd Street, Suite 20Lombard, Illinois 60148-6120630/629-3776 Fax 630/629-3940

Finding the keys to achievement

LEADWITHOUT

LIMITS

© 2014 SunGard K-12 Education. SunGard, the SunGard logo, eSchoolPLUS, PerformancePLUS, and IEPPLUS are trademarks or registered trademarks of SunGard Data Systems Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries.

Promote collaboration with staff, parents, and students

Save you time and money

Provide insights for your future

all for student achievement

Award-winning software solutions that

EDDIEAWARDS

COMPUTED GAZETTE

The 19th AnnualEducation Software

Review

WINNER* *

nsof e.

1

SunGard K-12 Education has been helping districts successfully manage education for more than 40 years—contact us today to see how we can help your district Lead without Limits!

866-905-8989 | sungardk12.com/Leadsungardk12.com/blog


F E A T U R E A R T I C L E

The authors have a confession

to make. We are both retired

Iowa school administrators (one

a superintendent and one an ele-

mentary principal). You might ask

why this is significant and why we

would even make a confession in

The Illinois School Board Jour-

nal. First, we come to the topic

of Illinois school administrator

salaries with fresh eyes. We also

come from a system where the pen-

sion is solid, although not nearly

as lucrative. We come from a state

with much lower average salaries,

but in which retired educators also

earn Social Security. Thus, when

we examine data, we believe we

can set aside our bias and opin-

ions about Illinois’ financial woes,

pension debate and cost shift, and

differences in salaries and retire-

ment systems. We need only to

examine the data.

When we do that, the word dis-

parity comes to mind.

An example: The highest-paid

superintendent salary in Illinois for

2014-2015 was $336,350, according

to the Illinois State Board of Educa-

tion. The highest superintendent sal-

ary in Iowa, in a district with 33,200

students, was $260,000, according

to the Iowa Association of School

Boards.

Why is there a significant differ-

ence? Take Chicago and its suburbs

out of Illinois and you have two sim-

ilar Midwestern states.

Illinois elementary and sec-

ondary administrators’ salaries,

according to the U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics (2013), are similar

to those in Washington, Oregon,

California, Alaska, Minnesota,

New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New Jersey,

Delaware, Maryland, and Wash-

ington, D.C. Excepting Minnesota

and Illinois, these states are on

Lora Wolff is

an assistant

professor of

educational

leadership at

Western Illinois

University. Dean

Halverson is

a professor of

educational

leadership, also

at Western.

Administrator Salaries, Part II:

Salaries reflect regional disparitiesBy Lora Wolff and Dean Halverson

C O V E R S T O R Y


the east and west coasts. Mean-

while, Iowa elementary and sec-

ondary administrators’ salaries are

smaller, comparable to Nebraska,

Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan,

Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Wyo-

ming, and Nevada.

Table 1 shows data for Illinois

and its five bordering states. The Illi-

nois average salary is $5,000 more

than in Wisconsin and over $11,000

greater than the next highest state,

Missouri. The disparity is even high-

er when examining salaries at the

90th percentile: a difference of over

$40,000 top to bottom.

The focus of this article is not

administrator salaries across states.

However, the comparison should put

perspective on Illinois school admin-

istrator salaries.

Principal salaries

From 2012-2013 to 2013 -

2014, the number of elementary,

middle school and high school

principals with salaries reported

remained stable (see Table 2).

However, reported numbers were

down from previous reports from

2007 and 2011. We caution read-

ers against assuming that there

was a significant decline in the

number of principals; we can only

say that fewer principals reported

in 2012-13 and 2013-14. The gap

in salaries (both high salary and

average salary) between elementa-

ry, middle school and high school

salaries closed during 2013-2014

with average salary increases at the

elementary and high school levels.

Regional comparisons

In examining average elemen-

tary principals’ salaries (see Table

3), the lowest-paid principals, at

$76,898, were in the southeast

region of Illinois, with the highest

average of $109,679 in the north-

east region. The highest elementary

salary of $192,275 was also in the

northeast region. The lowest high

salary for elementary principals was

in the east central region, result-

ing in a gap over $81,000. Between

the two years studied, there was an

increase in salaries for elementary

principals in four of five regions,

Table 1: Elementary and Secondary School Administrators Salaries

Illinois and Bordering States

State Average Salary 50th Percentile Salary 90th Percentile Salary

Illinois $99,640 $95,210 $147,150Indiana $81,890 $82,460 $107,040Iowa $86,850 $87,810 $116,090Kentucky $81,810 $82,290 $109,490Missouri $88,640 $86,540 $120,790Wisconsin $94,690 $93,650 $123,600Source: National Survey of Salaries and Wages in Public Schools

Table 2: 2012-2013 and 2013-2104

Illinois Principal Salaries

Level Number Year High Salary Average Salary Percent Change

Elementary 2163 2012-2013 $181,056 $99,056 0.79% 2159 2013-2014 $192,275 $99,857

Middle School 501 2012-2013 $181,094 $100,531 -0.65% 504 2013-2014 $186,975 $99,883

High School 694 2012-2013 $215,298 $101,546 1.26% 698 2013-2014 $214,096 $102,841 Source: ISBE

“We believe we can set aside our bias and opinions

about Illinois’ financial woes, pension debate and

cost shift, and differences in salaries and retirement

systems. We need only to examine the data. When

we do that, the word disparity comes to mind.”


with a decrease in average salaries

(down 2.76 percent) in the east cen-

tral region.

Middle school principals in

the west central region had the

lowest average salary, $80,048,

with the highest of $110,332 in

the northeast region, or a gap of

over $30,000. Interestingly, the

northeast, northwest and west

centra l reg ions a l l repor ted a

decrease in average salaries. In

examining highest reported salary,

the northeast region topped the list

at $186,975, with lowest reported

high salary in the east central, at

$110,115. The gap in high salaries

at the middle school level is over

$76,000.

The northeast high school

principals had both the highest

average sa lary, $118,682, and

the highest sa lary, $ 214,096.

Southwest high school principals

reported the lowest average salary,

$83,810 and the lowest high salary,

$130,243. The disparity in high

salary is almost $89,000. Aver-

age salaries increased in the east

central, northeast, and southwest

regions (See Figure 1 for regions

listed by county).

Superintendent salaries

From 2012-2013 to 2013-2014,

there was a decline in average

superintendent salaries at both ele-

mentary district and high school

district levels. Superintendents

of unit school districts enjoyed a

slight increase in average salary, but

reported the lowest average salary,

$120,066. Unit superintendents

also had the lowest high salary,

$297,700. High school superinten-

dents reported the highest salary

and largest average salary. When

exploring high salaries there is a gap

of approximately $39,000. A gap of

over $43,000 is reported in average

salaries (see Table 4).

Regional comparisons

The northeast region had the

highest superintendent salaries of

all three district configurations,

along with highest average sala-

ries (see Table 5). The southeast

region had the lowest high salary for

elementary and high school super-

intendents. The southwest region

reported the lowest high salary for

unit superintendents. The south-

west region had lowest averages for

elementary superintendents and

high school superintendents with

the southeast region reporting low-

est average salary for unit superin-

tendents.

Superintendent salaries show

variance in fluctuation. The percent-

age of salary change for elementary

superintendents ranged from -4.62

percent in the west central region

to 9.16 percent in the southeast.

For high school superintendents,

salary change was even more dis-

parate, ranging from -6.06 percent to

14.61 percent. The gap ranged from

-5.95 percent to 7.45 percent for unit

superintendents.

Other considerations

When looking at Illinois admin-

istrator salaries across the state, we

note the following key points:

• In recent years, there was an

increase in salaries in all but

one region for principals and

superintendents at all three lev-

els. This is not the case when

analyzing 2012-13 and 2013-14

data.

• The nor theast reg ion had

declines in salary at both prin-

cipal and superintendent levels

(in five of six categories).

Table 4: 2012-2013 and 2013-2104

Illinois Superintendent Salaries

Level Number Year High Salary Average Salary Percent Change

Elementary 367 2012-2013 $321,476 $140,450 -0.66% 368 2013-2014 $316,616 $139,530

High School 95 2012-2013 $317,311 $167,115 -2.16% 101 2012-2013 $336,350 $163,584

Unit 371 2012-2013 $294,514 $118,938 0.94% 365 2013-2014 $297,700 $120,066 Source: ISBE


Table 3: 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 salary dataIllinois principal salaries by region High Low Average % Level/Region N Salary Salary Salary ChangeElementary East Central 12-13 131 $112,090 $14,760 $80,312 East Central 13-14 133 $111,092 $12,619 $78,153 -2.76% Northeast 12-13 1455 $181,056 $12,856 $108,866 Northeast 13-14 1460 $192,275 $10,666 $109,679 0.74% Northwest 12-13 188 $139,620 $10,000 $82,387 Northwest 13-14 180 $137,627 $14,674 $83,133 0.90% Southeast 12-13 65 $120,399 $11,000 $75,086 Southeast 13-14 60 $127,623 $30,042 $76,898 2.36% Southwest 12-13 120 $114,253 $13,703 $76,356 Southwest 13-14 122 $117,101 $18,710 $78,732 3.02% West Central 12-13 204 $126,547 $11,580 $77,344 West Central 13-14 204 $132,349 $11,869 $77,618 0.35% Middle School East Central 12-13 42 $122,482 $50,518 $85,418 East Central 13-14 39 $120,893 $61,646 $88,062 3.00% Northeast 12-13 298 $181,094 $15,226 $111,777 Northeast 13-14 300 $186,975 $10,151 $110,332 -1.31% Northwest 12-13 62 $130,301 $23,350 $85,682 Northwest 13-14 59 $138,119 $40,241 $85,532 -0.17% Southeast 12-13 13 $120,772 $59,867 $83,373 Southeast 13-14 15 $141,301 $63,459 $85,381 2.35% Southwest 12-13 33 $108,310 $57,040 $83,304 Southwest 13-14 34 $110,115 $14,807 $85,519 2.59% West Central 12-13 53 $117,914 $51,870 $81,585 West Central 13-14 57 $122,083 $25,000 $80,048 -1.92% High School East Central 12-13 59 $142,230 $27,350 $87,155 East Central 13-14 58 $141,355 $23,315 $85,120 -2.39% Northeast 12-13 333 $215,298 $20,342 $120,191 Northeast 13-14 371 $214,096 $12,200 $118,682 -1.27% Northwest 12-13 91 $130,815 $10,000 $88,408 Northwest 13-14 85 $139,260 $10,600 $89,051 0.72% Southeast 12-13 47 $126,409 $11,523 $75,784 Southeast 13-14 41 $134,232 $18,254 $78,134 3.01% Southwest 12-13 66 $128,735 $36,437 $84,240 Southwest 13-14 56 $130,243 $12,360 $83,810 -0.51% West Central 12-13 98 $157,491 $17,239 $83,064 West Central 13-14 87 $147,885 $12,000 $84,839 2.09%Source: ISBE Division of Data Analysis and Accountability

Table 5: 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 salary dataIllinois superintendent salaries by region High Low Average % Level/Region N Salary Salary Salary ChangeElementary East Central 12-13 30 $164,927 $25,000 $100,654 East Central 13-14 32 $163,200 $25,445 $98,533 -2.15% Northeast 12-13 228 $321,476 $16,200 $171,517 Northeast 13-14 231 $316,616 $11,038 $168,664 -1.69% Northwest 12-13 34 $137,892 $28,325 $88,249 Northwest 13-14 34 $140,650 $40,000 $94,051 6.17% Southeast 12-13 10 $120,000 $20,000 $76,283 Southeast 13-14 10 $126,436 $20,000 $83,979 9.16% Southwest 12-13 38 $151,783 $34,425 $83,407 Southwest 13-14 32 $151,015 $30,000 $80,267 -3.91% West Central 12-13 27 $139,753 $36,183 $93,119 West Central 13-14 29 $144,637 $37,388 $89,008 -4.62% High School East Central 12-13 8 $185,938 $66,409 $125,503 East Central 13-14 8 $175,000 $69,730 $121,242 -3.52% Northeast 12-13 58 $317,311 $69,000 $198,273 Northeast 13-14 65 $336,350 $13,982 $186,961 -6.05% Northwest 12-13 9 $156,030 $65,179 $128,301 Northwest 13-14 9 $149,000 $69,090 $128,109 -0.15% Southeast 12-13 3 $132,907 $111,760 $125,574 Southeast 13-14 3 $145,832 $122,292 $134,148 6.39% Southwest 12-13 8 $180,209 $25,000 $108,745 Southwest 13-14 7 $161,236 $19,615 $107,728 -0.94% West Central 12-13 9 $159,184 $10,716 $107,855 West Central 13-14 9 $178,534 $57,957 $126,314 14.61% Unit East Central 12-13 49 $250,000 $36,161 $116,638 East Central 13-14 48 $229,200 $50,000 $118,534 1.60% Northeast 12-13 59 $294,514 $51,765 $161,233 Northeast 13-14 60 $297,700 $10,500 $152,178 -5.95% Northwest 12-13 79 $212,180 $11,290 $112,364 Northwest 13-14 77 $215,787 $11,667 $109,904 -2.24% Southeast 12-13 45 $188,231 $37,021 $105,971 Southeast 13-14 44 $199,524 $20,000 $107,036 1.00% Southwest 12-13 52 $180,000 $24,000 $108,014 Southwest 13-14 49 $197,204 $24,000 $116,712 7.45% West Central 12-13 87 $250,209 $32,775 $110,675 West Central 13-14 87 $242,872 $11,375 $116,508 5.01% Source: ISBE Division of Data Analysis and Accountability


• The southeast region had in-

creases in salary at all three

principal and superintendent

levels.

• As in previous years, the average

salaries of elementary, middle

school and high school princi-

pals are quite close, with a span

of approximately $3000 with

high school principals having

the highest average salary.

Supply and demand is another

concern. The additional demands

of the new teacher evaluation sys-

tem may deter those considering an

administrative career. Furthermore,

these demands may push veteran

principals and superintendents to

retire, which would affect admin-

istrator salaries as districts recruit

replacements.

New Illinois admissions stan-

dards for those entering principal

preparation programs, demands of

the new internship experience (on

principal candidates and mentor

principals) and licensure require-

ments (TAP400 and two principal

tests) may also serve as a deter-

rent for high-quality potential

candidates. The numbers show

that fewer potential principals

are enrolling in principal prepa-

ration programs. In FY12 there

were 2855 candidates entitled,

this dwindled to 1731 in FY13

and declined even further based

on project ions f rom the f i r st

half of FY 14 (512 entitlements).

Classroom teachers may not be

willing to jump through the addi-

tional hoops of certification, for

increased responsibi l ities of a

school leader that include longer

hours for not much more money.

With uncertainty surround-

ing the state’s retirement systems,

it may become more difficult to

recruit qual ity school leaders

from out-of-state. As principals

July/Aug 2014Nov/Dec 2014

March/April 2015

Contact your IASB field services director today!

Springfield - 217/528-9688

Lombard - 630/629-3776

A system of

EVALUATION starts at the TOP with the

SCHOOLBOARD!

___ Annual board self-evaluation

___ Clear mission, vision and goals

___ Solid community connection

___ Productive meetings

___ Strong board-superintendent relationship

___100% Does your score add up?

Field Services

How do you score?

Field service ads.indd 1 2/2/2015 9:46:47 AM


and superintendents retire at an

increasing rate, it may be difficult

to fill leadership positions. Illinois

State University reported the need

for new principals increased from

339 in 2010, to 410 in 2011 and

439 in 2012. This increasing trend

is unlikely to change.

Conclusions and

recommendations

The theme of this article is

disparity in administrator sala-

ries. In general, Il linois school

administrators make more than

do their counterparts in border-

ing states, a definite disparity. But

more concerning is the disparity

in principal and superintendent

salaries within the state of Illinois.

Yes, cost of living varies across the

state, but that only goes so far in

justifying the regional disparities

in salaries.

A hard look at salaries across

the state is in order. We’re remind-

ed of what author Daniel Pink

wrote in his book Drive: The Sur-

prising Truth About What Moti-

vates Us, “The best use of money

as a motivator is to pay people

enough to take the issue of money

off the table: Pay people enough

so that they’re not thinking about

money and they’re thinking about

the work.”

The extreme salary disparities

in Illinois need to be taken off the

table so that school leaders through-

out the state are thinking about the

important work of student learning

and not that their counterpart makes

$90,000 more.

With the difficulty some regions

have in attracting superintendents

and principals, school boards might

consider a “grow your own” super-

intendent and principal program.

However, boards need to realize that

the compensation package for “grow

your own” leaders needs to be at or

above the state average so these lead-

ers choose to stay rather than seek a

higher salary with increased benefits

elsewhere.

With Illinois school districts

in the dire financial straits they

are reporting, some school boards

might also consider consolidating

small elementary and small high

school districts in the same com-

munity. A unified district could

share teachers, eliminate unnec-

essary duplication of services and

reduce administrators. This could

make financial sense without neg-

atively affect the learning envi-

ronment. It might also be one way

to reduce disparity by improving

administrator salaries in districts

at the low end of the pay scale. This

is not an easy discussion to have,

but it is one worth thinking about

long and hard.

Notes

The authors wish to thank Mark

Hobneck of ISBE’s data and prog-

ress reporting division for providing

raw data and advice on sorting data

by regions. For information about

ISBE’s data collection process, vis-

it www.isbe.net/research/htmls/

salary_report.htm.

Thanks a l so to Serena Ju

Huang, graduate assistant at West-

ern Illinois University, for sorting

and organizing the data.

For Part I of this two-part series,

and for the administrative salary

reports covering 1998 to 2007, visit

the IASB website at www.iasb.com/

services/adminsalaries.cfm.

“The extreme salary disparities in Illinois need

to be taken off the table so that school lead-

ers throughout the state are thinking about the

important work of student learning and not that

their counterpart makes $90,000 more.”



The C om mon C ore S t a t e

Standards (CCSS) have the

potential to be a positive force in

education, but the success of stu-

dents will rise and fall depending on

how the standards are locally inte-

grated into curriculum, instruction

and assessment in school districts

across Illinois.

To ensure successful implemen-

tation, school leaders must clarify

and community members must

understand two important facts:

State governors and state education

leaders — not the federal government

— created the Common Core State

Standards. The State of Illinois — not

local school districts — adopted the

standards.

CCSS are designed to provide

English literacy and math skills

necessary for students to compete

in the 21st-century global market.

New standards match academic

expectations for students held by

higher-performing countries and

aim to assure that all high school

graduates are prepared for first-year

college classes or rigorous career

training. Common Core standards

are higher, clearer and deeper than

previous standards. They are more

challenging and require students

to become critical thinkers who

demonstrate perseverance while

problem-solving.

The Common Core State Stan-

dards, like all previous learning stan-

dards, set expectations for academic

achievement. The fact that Illinois

adopted CCSS does not usurp local

school authority to write curricula

or choose teaching materials, nor

does it hamper creativity of teachers.

A district’s school board-approved

curriculum is the map to achieve the

standards. Local boards of education

continue to adopt curricula devel-

oped specifically for their districts,

as well as purchase texts and sup-

porting materials most appropriate

for children in their district.

Illinois school districts began

implementing the standards after

the Illinois State Board of Education

adopted CCSS in June 2010. Inte-

gration of the Common Core into a

district’s curriculum is a multi-year

process with no easy answers. Sim-

ply put, we must implement the

Common Core State Standards.

Therefore, school districts must

have a continuous cycle of review-

ing and revising curriculum based

on standards.

A more engaged community

results in improved teaching and

learning. A school district’s com-

munity engagement program should

aim to improve student achieve-

ment by building trust, confidence

and support with stakeholders. A

strong curriculum and communi-

ty engagement plan together will

produce outstanding results for

students.

Why CCSS and PARCC?

The National Governor’s Asso-

ciation and Council of Chief State

Schools Officers led the initiative

to establish the Common Core State

Standards — a single set of clear edu-

cational standards for kindergarten

through 12th grade in English lan-

guage arts and mathematics. Rais-

ing standards for students is not a

Glenn Wood

is assistant

superintendent

for curriculum

and instruction,

and Thomas

Hernandez

is director of

community

relations, at

Plainfield

Community

Consolidated

School District

202.

Connecting Common Core with the communityBy Glenn Wood and Thomas Hernandez

©iStock/Thinkstock


new idea. Several federal initiatives

have attempted to raise standards

and improve student achievement

including Nation at Risk in 1983

and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

in 2002. However, NCLB allowed

states to established assessments

with different proficiency levels and

standards.

In response to states lowering

standards to meet NCLB progress

goals, the National Governors

Association wanted a common

set of standards and assessments

that all states would agree to join.

Governors and state superinten-

dents of education enlisted experts

to draft and review the standards

before opening them up for public

comment and finalizing them. The

Association released the Common

Core State Standards on June 2,

2010 ; later that month Il l inois

adopted the standards. By 2011,

encouraged by the federal Race to

the Top initiative, 45 states adopted

the benchmarks that detail what

students should learn at each grade

level.

Beginning in the current 2014-

2015 school year, Illinois students

will take the Partnership for Assess-

ment of Readiness for College and

Career (PARCC) assessment to

measure their learning. As PARCC

gets closer to implementation, Com-

mon Core has received much more

attention.

Support for CCSS slipped

While most states remain com-

mitted, a number of public polls indi-

cate that support for Common Core

slipped noticeably between 2013

and 2014. The change to CCSS in

American classrooms stayed mostly

out of the public spotlight until 2013,

when backlash began to grow. In New

York, new Common Core tests sent

scores plummeting. In Indiana, con-

servatives were leery of the Obama

administration’s support of the stan-

dards. In early 2014, the changes in

American classrooms began to hit

the mainstream. The Common Core

State Standards became a hot topic

on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

and provided material for television

pundits and comedians.

Public opposition has come from

both bi-partisan political groups who

- - - ---

--- -

----------- - - - - - - --

------ - - -

----

--

- - - - - ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

----

- -

- - - - - - - - -

The Road to theCommon Core

PLEASE VISIT: http://ww2.psd202.org/s/ccss2014

for information about the CCSS.

KEY POINTS:

MORE CHALLENGING:The CCSS are more advanced and challenging than Illinois’ current learning standards.

SUPPORT TO CLOSE LEARNING GAPSThe transition to the CCSS will create some initial "learning gaps" between grades. District 202 will provide appropriate supports and resources to close these gaps. District 202 teachers last year created special teaching strategies to close the anticipated gaps in math.

NEW STANDARDS, NEW TEST The new state standardized test for both math and English Language Arts will be given for the �rst time next spring.

LOWER TEST SCORES AT FIRST: The change to the CCSS may produce lowerstandardized test scores at �rst, until the CCSS are fully implemented.

FOR ALL STUDENTS: The CCSS will apply to all students, with appropriate modi�-cations for students with exceptional needs.

DISTRICT CURRICULUM:District 202 teachers and administrators aligned the district’s English Language Arts curriculum to the CCSS last year.

DOWN THE ROAD: - First CCSS standardized test: Spring 2015 - Science/Social Studies: TBD

Community CCSS Meetings

September 3, 2014 - 7 p.m., Indian Trail Middle School14723 S. Eastern Ave., Plfd.

September 10, 2014 - 7 p.m., Drouden Point Middle School1911 Drauden Road, Plfd.

September 24, 2014 - 7 p.m., Heritage Grove Middle School12425 S. Van Dyke Road, Plfd.

October 1, 2014 - 7 p.m., John F. Kennedy Middle School12350 S. Essington Rd., Plfd.

Illinois is one of 45 states that are replacing their state learning standards with the new Common Core State Standards for learning. A consortium of state education and business leaders developed the Common Core standards to provide a more rigorous and uniform set of academic expectations nationwide. Individual states and school districts then decide how best to implement the standards, and create their own curriculums to reach the new academic targets.

Last year, District 202 implemented the CCSS math standards. This year, we are implementing the English Language Arts standards.

Here is a “road map” of our progress with this signi�cant change in public education…

we are here

SPRING2013

ProfessionalDevelopment;

Ongoing

SPRING2015First

CommonCore Test

FALL2014

LanguageArts

Standards

FALL2012

IntroduceCommon

Core

FALL2013

ImplementMath

Standards

“Public opposition has come from both bi-partisan

political groups who fear expanded federal

control and from teachers unions worried about

consequences for teacher evaluation.”

Graphic courtesy of Plainfield CCSD 202


fear expanded federal control and

from teachers unions worried about

consequences for teacher evaluation.

Elected officials, including school

board members, have received push-

back from community members.

Politicians are using Common Core

as a political platform.

School board members must

strive to ensure that their districts

have processes and systems in place

for curriculum development and

community engagement as new ini-

tiatives are implemented.

Curriculum development at

District 202

Plainfield Community Consol-

idated School District 202 imple-

mented its new CCSS-aligned

mathematics curriculum in 2013

and English/language arts curric-

ulum in 2014 using a multi-year

curriculum development process.

That work began in the fall of 2011

and involved teachers, adminis-

trators and community members

in the process to write curriculum

and common outcome assessments,

design professional development

and review resources. This process

allows curriculum teams to respond

to changing needs of students.

During the curriculum develop-

ment process, it became apparent

the district would need to teach

Common Core to parents and stu-

dents alike.

Community engagement plan

At Plainfield 202, we have a

comprehensive community engage-

ment plan, which includes regular

community forums, an updated

website and regular correspon-

dence with stakeholders using

email, newsletters, letters and press

releases.

Based on the significant shift

of public response to and support

for CCSS, we felt it necessary to

develop a long-term focus on Com-

mon Core. By design, our Com-

mon Core communications plan

fostered a welcoming environment

for families, created predictable

community meetings that made it

Policy Services

Contact IASB Policy Services today for information:630/629-3776 or 217/528-9688 Ext. 1214 or 1125

[email protected] or [email protected]

PRESS, the IASB sample policy and procedure service – Receive 24/7 Internet access to PRESS, IASB’s sample board policy and administrative procedure service. Find the information you need quickly and easily with our powerful search engine and the legal, informational, and time saving links embedded in the policies and procedures.

School Board Policies Online – Let IASB publish your board policy manual online and easily navigate your manual with keyword searches, jumps to cross references, and links to legal references by using the same excellent search engine used for PRESS online. Place the IASB supplied link to your manual on your dis-trict website to provide increased community access and awareness of your district’s governing document.

BoardBook® – Learn about the advantages of electronic board packet preparation made possible through use of IASB’s BoardBook® service by scheduling a demonstration for yourself, your administrators, or your entire board.

Using technology to enhance your board effectiveness through online services, such as...

policy ads 2014.indd 7 1/30/2015 4:46:46 PM


As the dates for administering the Partnership

for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers

(PARCC) approach, conversation has turned to school

districts’ readiness and willingness to implement PARCC.

PARCC is an assessment of the Common Core State

Standards (CCSS). Originally, 45 states committed to

CCSS, and 26 of those, including Illinois, were using

PARCC. At press time, the number of states that plan

to implement PARCC as scheduled has dropped to 10,

plus the District of Columbia.

In late January, the Illinois State Board of Education

reiterated Illinois’ commitment to PARCC testing in a

strongly worded letter to school superintendents and

school board presidents.

In Illinois, PARCC assessments in English Lan-

guage Arts and mathematics will be administered to all

students in grades 3-8. High school students will take

PARCC assessments based on enrollment in English

III for English Language Arts and in Algebra II/Math

III for mathematics. Most Illinois school districts are

proceeding as planned, although not without concerns.

Among the concerns: having the necessary technology

to implement the tests, emphasizing testing instead over

classroom teaching and learning, and the time that must

be devoted to the assessments.

National media picked up on concerns expressed

by Peru Elementary School District 124 Superintendent

Mark Cross in a letter to parents in August:

“Unfortunately, there are many federal and state

education initiatives that can very much be a dis-

traction from what matters most. These initiatives

are based on good intentions and are cloaked in the

concept of accountability, but unfortunately, most do

little to actually improve teaching and learning. Most

are designed to assess, measure, rank and otherwise

place some largely meaningless number on a child or

a school or a teacher or a district. That is not to say

that student growth data is not important. It is very

critical, and it is exactly why we have our own local

assessment system in place. It is what our principals

and teachers use to help guide instruction and meet

the needs of your kids on a daily basis. In other words,

it is meaningful data to help us teach your child.”

A January letter to parents from Trisha Kocanda,

superintendent of Winnetka School District 36, was also

featured in national media, and echoes Cross’s message.

“We recognize the need for assessments and

accountability. District 36 is committed to complying

with State mandates, including the PARCC. However,

we believe that this test continues the over-emphasis

on standardized assessments as evaluation tools for

students and schools … It is important that we stay

informed and understand the impact of reform on our

students. We often share stories about District driven

goals and initiatives. I believe it is equally important

to shed light on State requirements that influence local

decisions and ultimately our students’ experiences.”

Both Peru Elementary School District 124 and Winnetka

School District 36 plan to implement PARCC as scheduled.

In November, the United States Department of Edu-

cation responded to an ISBE inquiry and confirmed that

school districts are not allowed to “take a year off” from

assessing students and that all students must take the

same assessments.

In mid-January, Chicago Public Schools proposed

to withdraw from the PARCC assessment, after requests

for exemptions and delays were denied. CPS then indi-

cated that PARCC implementation would take place in

10 percent of its schools.

In a Jan. 30 letter to school superintendents and

school board presidents, ISBE spelled out its determi-

nation on moving forward with PARCC testing, and the

potential penalties for not doing so. The letter, signed

by State Superintendent of Education Christopher Koch

and ISBE chair James T. Meeks, said:

“We write in response to the position certain dis-

tricts have taken or are threatening to take regarding

the administration of the Partnership for Assessment

of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC assess-

ment. We send this letter to make it clear that all dis-

tricts must administer the PARCC assessment to all

of their students unless the students are specifically

exempt under federal law.”

The letter further spelled out the financial penal-

ties that the state and school district would face by not

administering the PARCC assessment.

State holds firm on PARCC implementation

continued on page 19



easy for community members to be

involved, and included parents in

the decision-making process. Over 2

1/2 years, district and building per-

sonnel held 12 evening community

forums around the district. Specific

events around CCSS and PARCC

include:

• Initial distribution of 30,000

specially-produced fliers, map-

ping “The Road to the Common

Core,” to all parents during

parent-teacher conferences

(November 2012)

• Mass mailing/letter from the

superintendent to all district

addresses (November 2012)

• Flier posted on all 31 websites

and promoted in district email

newsletter reaching 38,000

ema i l add re s se s ( Wi nt er

2013)

• Held the first of three rounds of

community forums, each with

four meetings. The first round

was titled, “What’s coming …”

(Spring 2013)

• Community forums were pro-

moted in press releases to local

and regional media and web-

sites, in the district’s Spring

2013 newsletter and in a series

of Connect-ED calls.

• A second round of community

forums emphasized “Math stan-

dards/teacher experience.” (Fall

2013)

• The third round of community

forums included “English stan-

dards /PARCC” and a status

update focusing on the shifting

political and public reaction to

CCSS. (Fall 2014)

• A fifth forum will take place

in Spring 2015 to highlight

the results from the first-ever

PARCC assessment

• Special “Common Core” web-

site with links to many parent

resources

• One-way email address so that

parents can share concerns/

questions directly with district

administrators.

These communications efforts

— most especially the communi-

ty forums — have helped parents

understand the transition to CCSS.

Still, many parents found themselves

frustrated by CCSS when they sat

down to help their children with

math homework. Based on feedback

from the community forums, we have

taken a multi-pronged approach to

getting the word out to parents: the

Common Core standards will change

what and how students learn. That

approach includes family math nights,

letters to parents about Common Core

math, videos that describe curricular

changes, and posting detailed parent

math guides for each grade level on

school websites. Teachers also send

home one- to two-page newsletters

for each new unit students are doing

in math class.

Conclusion

The road to the implementation

of the Common Core State Standards

in school districts is continuing. It

has been filled with curves and speed

bumps along the way. Higher, clear-

er, deeper standards are a good thing.

When implemented properly in a

school district, and by developing

parent support for the change, stu-

dents will become self-directed prob-

lem solvers better prepared for the

world of work or college.

IASB ServIceASSocIAteS

The best ofeverything for schools

IASB Service Associates provide quality products and services for schools.

Membership is by invitation only. A list of Service Associate firms is on the IASB website

and in this Journal.

“By design, our Common Core communications plan

fostered a welcoming environment for families, created

predictable community meetings that made it easy

for community members to be involved, and included

parents in the decision-making process.”



A new era in educational stan-

dards and assessment prac-

tice is sweeping into school districts

across Illinois. For many districts,

the new Illinois Learning Standards

(Illinois’ version of Common Core

State Standards) are being incor-

porated into classrooms throughout

the state. The new standards are

designed to be rigorous, clear and

uniform to ensure that students

are prepared to be col lege and

career ready. As with any new set

of standards, the Illinois Learning

Standards come with a new stan-

dardized assessment that many

students wil l soon experience:

Partnership for the Assessment of

Readiness for College and Careers

(PARCC).

Measuring student achievement

in Illinois schools is not a new con-

cept and it has been well documented

over the years. In the late 1970s, the

state introduced the Illinois Inven-

tory of Educational Progress (IIEP)

as a means of collecting information

on educational achievement. Results

were readily available to teachers

and administrators and used in

decision-making practices for the

betterment of students and school.

As learning standards and student

expectations changed, so did the

testing measure. In 1988, Illinois

Goal Assessment Program (IGAP)

testing began. Illinois adopted new

learning standards in 1997, which

led to transition to a new assessment

known as the Illinois Standards

Achievement Test (ISAT). Over the

past 17 years, students in grades 3-8

have been tested using ISAT to meet

requirements of the federal No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001.

Now, teachers and students are

preparing to take the newest assess-

ment, known as PARCC.

Kerry Glenn is

a curriculum

specialist at

Unity Point

School District

140. Maria

Deaton is lead

mentor and

language arts

teacher for

grades five and

six at Unity Point.

Lori James-Gross

is the Unity Point

superintendent.

Transitioning to Common Core State Standards:

One district’s storyBy Kerry Glenn, Maria Deaton and Lori James-Gross

Figure 1Unity Point Common Core Progression


While there are many critics of

the state’s implementation of Com-

mon Core State Standards, very few

people will argue against the fact that

high standards are a worthy goal for

the state’s schools. As the inaugural

date of PARCC assessment quickly

approaches, classroom teachers will

be the first to tell you that curricu-

lar preparations began months and

even years ago. While there has been

a shift in the focus of education in

order to meet the demands of these

new standards and assessments,

school districts across the state

continue to struggle to find time,

resources and funding to implement

effective change. Unity Point School,

a small rural district in southern Illi-

nois, has faced these challenges and

found that the most powerful and

ample resources for change lie within

their own teachers.

Unity Point School hous -

es roughly 710 pre-kindergarten

through eighth-grade students and is

located Carbondale, home to South-

ern Illinois University. The college

setting provides unique challenges to

the school district. Student mobility

hovers around 20 percent and about

10 percent of the student population

is English Language Learners. Nearly

57 percent of students are considered

low income and qualify for free and

reduced lunch programs. Despite

these many challenges, faculty, staff,

administration and school board

members are dedicated to providing

quality education, with limited fund-

ing, and have openly assisted with

the transition to the new standards.

W hi le being r igorous and

emphasizing depth over breadth, the

new Illinois Learning Standards set

expectations of what teachers should

teach, not how they should teach.

Building on the notion that teach-

ers are still in control of their class-

rooms, Unity Point grade-level teams

took on the task of deconstructing

the standards. Teachers worked

through a self-designed framework

that allowed them to deconstruct

standards and target specific learn-

ing goals and instructional levels.

This process began over four years

ago and allowed Unity Point’s teach-

ers to engage and interact with the

standards at each grade level, while

working within their team to ensure

a deeper understanding of the expec-

tations (see Figure 1). Teacher lead-

ers emerged from these groups and

each has played an important role in

moving the district into this transi-

tional phase of education.

Effective leadership must be

a joint effort, and it establishes a

school-wide vision of commitment

to the success of all students. School

boards play an important role is this

vision. Research in school leadership

Nov/Dec 2014March/April 2014

The SuperintendentEvaluation Process

School boards have a responsibility to evaluate their superintendent to:• Demonstrate accountability, • Strengthen the board-superintendent relationship,• Provide the superintendent with professional

development opportunities, and• Make contractual and compensation decisions.

Your field services director can support your school board and superintendent team in this critical governance work. Call today!

Lombard: 630/629-3776 Springfield: 217/528-9688

Field Services

Field service ads.indd 3 2/2/2015 11:45:31 AM


indicates that when teachers and

staff members become involved in

meaningful change, students reap

the benefits. Turning over the lead-

ership role can be uncomfortable for

administration and school boards,

but the outcomes speak for them-

selves. When teachers and students

understand what is expected of them,

the quality of the educational expe-

rience increases tenfold. Unity Point

has found this philosophy of leader-

ship to be especially beneficial as the

school implements the new learning

standards.

As a way to move the district

forward, Unity Point’s school board,

administration and faculty work

together to create a school climate

in which educational responsibility

is shared and nurtured. This type of

atmosphere has allowed teachers to

interact and engage with each other

and build a network of knowledge

and support. As the district con-

tinues to tackle the new initiatives

of CCSS and PARCC, this teacher

leadership is imperative in getting

the district moving in the right

direction (see Figure 2). Teachers

take an active role and lead profes-

sional development, so that they can

make connections to the standards,

the assessments and the students

within their district. Teachers and

administrators engage in conversa-

tions about best practices already

occurring in classrooms, and how

the standards can be met using these

best practices. Teachers are also able

to articulate with grade levels both

above and below their assignments

in order to ensure consistency dis-

trict-wide. Content-area teachers

work together to ensure that the

district’s assessments allow students

to demonstrate their knowledge of

the standards and their readiness to

progress through grade levels. Ongo-

ing communication with community,

school board, administration and fac-

ulty is critically important in moving

the district forward.

There is no doubt that the new

Illinois Learning Standards and

PARCC assessments pose challeng-

es for both teachers and students.

However, by working together, Unity

Point teachers feel supported by the

school community and are ready for

the challenges that lie ahead.

Figure 2Unity Point Transitional Responsibility

Resources

The clarification letter from the

U.S. Department of Education:

www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/

USED-ESEA-asmt-clarification

-1214.pdf.

ISBE information and updates

regarding PARCC assessments:

www.isbe.net/assessment/

parcc.htm.

PARCC implementation continued from page 15



F or many years, we have strug-

gled to make sense of the vol-

umes of high-stakes test data that

surround us. We have our homegrown

school-based tests, federally mandat-

ed state accountability tests, nation-

al tests, international tests, college

entrance tests, workplace readiness

tests and a variety of other tests

which can have a profound influence

on test-takers and their schools.

Because test data are more import-

ant than ever, we ingest more test data

than ever, particularly from local,

national and social media. For most

subjects, we read articles and adver-

tisements with a critical eye, forming

opinions about their accuracy and

reliability. However, we do not always

think of articles on test data the same

way. We assume test data are somehow

objective, scientific and significant.

As a statistician, I say that we

need to read much more critically

when evaluating what we read about

test data. This article looks at issues

surrounding current and future high-

stakes test data.

High-stakes tests:

More important than ever

We are entering a new world of

testing, with the introduction of the

Common Core State Standards and

tests built to assess whether students

have mastered them. Additionally, we

will soon utilize these tests not only for

student and school evaluation, but also

for formal teacher evaluation. Despite

current backlash against high-stakes

testing, it is not going away.

Test data are vital for measuring

student, school and district academic

performance. Test data can identify

at-risk students and guide their reme-

diation. Data provide a reality check

to a school’s perception of its per-

formance by providing comparison

data with other schools. Schools can

use such data to guide improvements

in academic performance, such as

identifying which curricular changes

enhance student learning. The data

are the most accessible measures of

school accountability.

High-stakes testing truly is high-

stakes. It usually requires many

hours of student and teacher time.

It provides students with stressful

hours of testing and labels them with

a score rating that can have life-long

implications. Aggregate scores can

label schools as desirable or unde-

sirable, impact teacher and admin-

istrator careers, and ultimately be

used to judge educational systems

of an entire state or country. So, as

we stand on the threshold of a new

testing era, we have to get it right.

Even the best test data have limits

We expect a lot out of tests. In a

relatively brief time (as short as a few

minutes for some computer-adaptive

tests), we expect to know how much

a student knows across a complex

subject area.

But most standardized tests

were never meant to solely define

student achievement. They were

meant as additional data points to

supplement student learning as mea-

sured by classroom grades. When

they were developed, we did not

expect brief standardized tests to

be as accurate a measure of student

ability as a teacher’s appraisal of stu-

dent performance over nine months

of observation and testing. Almost

every research study ever conduct-

ed has shown that future student

classroom performance, whether in

primary, secondary or post-second-

ary educational institutions, is best

predicted by past classroom perfor-

mance as measured by grades, not

test scores. In our quest to improve

accountability, we have lost sight of

this extremely important fact.

Steve Cordogan,

Ed.D., was

previously

director of

research and

evaluation at

Township High

School District

214 in Arlington

Heights. He is

a researcher,

consultant and

an adjunct

professor

of graduate

educational

statistics and

research

at Aurora

University.

A buyer’s guide to high-stakes test dataBy Steve Cordogan


However, we cannot compare

grade data between schools. Test

scores are one of the best ways we can

compare overall performance of stu-

dents across schools, states and coun-

tries. Measurements of college and

career success might ideally be more

authentic comparison measures, but

the data are harder to gather.

Test scores cannot be used to

measure school quality without

important reservations. The most

important factor in understanding

test scores is student demograph-

ic characteristics. In Illinois, the

percentage of students in a school

receiving free and reduced lunch-

es — that data alone — can predict

over 70 percent of the variance in

school ACT performance. In an area

even more specifically defined, the

Chicago suburbs, a combination of

the percentage of adults in the com-

munity with bachelor’s degrees and

the percentage of students who are

black, Hispanic or Native Ameri-

can can explain 93 to 95 percent of

the difference in district ACT per-

formance. That means school and

district performance is largely deter-

mined by the students who enter the

school, not what the school does for

the students. Some schools do sig-

nificantly outperform expectations

set by their demographics, and some

underperform, but no open-enroll-

ment public school in Illinois can

escape the reality of demographics

determining academic performance.

One proposed way around demo-

graphic determination of school per-

formance is to use growth models,

such as where average of student

growth over several grades is used

instead of a final performance score

to evaluate school performance. For

example, if a school grows from a stu-

dent average ACT EXPLORE score of

12 to a score of 18 over the course of

the first three years of high school, it

is equal to the performance of a school

whose students grow from 15 to 21.

However, demographics also

predetermine most growth levels.

Students with more academic at-risk

characteristics have both lower ini-

tial scores and lower growth. For

example, I found that students enter-

ing a large suburban high school dis-

trict with an average score of 12 on

the ACT EXPLORE test grew only an

average of four points to their PSAE

ACT score, while students with an

average EXPLORE score of 21 grew

by more than eight points. Growth

models will not compensate for dif-

ferences in student characteristics,

and any use of growth levels to eval-

uate schools or teachers which does

not consider demographics or ini-

tial performance levels will penalize

those who work with at-risk students.

Tracking school improvement

across years also is confounded by

consideration of where the school

was performing initially and demo-

graphic changes in its student body.

For example, it is much easier for a

school to improve if it was seriously

underperforming initially, while

the initially high-performing school

has much less room for growth. An

increase in at-risk student popu-

lation will usually lower academic

performance, a change that cannot

be attributed to school quality. Math-

ematically identifiable changes in a

school’s performance may mean lit-

tle in terms of actual instructional

improvement.

There are other issues. Some

tests are more accurate than oth-

ers. Different versions of tests are

not always consistent. And random

fluctuations in data can cause sub-

stantial differences in school perfor-

mance between years, particularly

for smaller schools and subgroups

like special education students.

With assessments as with any

product, consumers must be edu-

cated to understand what the data

really mean. Test data can provide

us with useful answers if we use truly

high-quality tests that are taken seri-

ously by students, and we then consid-

er the possible impact of demographic

considerations. But when testing com-

panies and media outlets release data,

they will report the data with few, if

any, caveats. This means that we

cannot — and should not — believe

everything we read about test data.

“Test scores cannot be used to measure school

quality without important reservations. The most

important factor in understanding test scores is

student demographic characteristics.”


Media outlets are businesses,

not public servants

There certainly is nothing wrong

with being a business, competing

and trying to make a profit — this

is a vital part of the economy of any

country. But because media outlets

are in the business of making money,

even content as seemingly objective

as test data needs to contribute to

that bottom line.

A most unfortunate reality

of modern media coverage is that

negative news gets more attention

than neutral or positive news. While

local education news, often based

on school press releases, may be

positive, statewide news is dispro-

portionately negative.

There have been countless exam-

ples of such reporting in the past few

years, but I will focus on one article,

“Illinois ACT scores post biggest drop

in a decade,” printed in the Chicago

Tribune on Aug. 21, 2013. The story

ignored the fact that extended-time

accommodated students, who com-

prise 10 percent of Illinois ACT takers

and score much lower than the rest of

the students, were included in reported

average for the first time. In reality,

ACT scores in Illinois for students

without extended-time accommo-

dations (those included in all ACT

reports in all decades prior to 2013)

had reached a 12-year record high

since universal testing began. In other

words, the headline was the opposite of

the truth. In the year since, ACT scores

in Illinois increased to another record

high, as shown in the graph below.

Attempts to prompt newspaper

publishers in all major metropolitan

areas of Illinois in 2011 and 2014

to publish the data on record-high

performance levels were mostly

ignored, despite the fact that the data

were public and could be verified.

Jim Broadway’s State School News

Service was the only media outlet to

report the findings.

Testing companies are businesses,

not public servants

Testing companies are too often

assumed to be altruistic. Regardless

of whether they are for-profit or

technically not-for-profit, they are

businesses whose survival depends

on selling products. The distinction

between for-profit and not-for-profit

may be meaningless in terms of cred-

ibility (the National Football League

is legally classified as a not-for-profit

organization too).

W hen organizations make

announcements about test results,

they want to receive publicity. Public-

ity helps sell products. Unfortunately,

again, negative news gets more atten-

tion than neutral or positive news.

So most releases of test data from

testing companies stress negative

aspects; students are not improving,

doing worse than before, or failing

to meet standards. This reportage

continues a demand for their prod-

ucts, either to continue to monitor

the situation through further testing,

or through purchase of the organi-

zation’s other products, which are

touted to improve student learning —

or at least improve test performance.

The most compelling example

of such reporting is the ACT Cor-

poration. ACT used its test findings

to create a set of benchmark score

levels in each test subject area. Stu-

dents had to achieve this score level

to be considered college-ready. The

methodology was seriously flawed,

but that issue is beyond the scope

of this article.

For the past few years, ACT has

issued a press release near the end

of summer to announce the most

recent graduating class test findings.

ACT uses the occasion to claim that,

according to its benchmarks, only

around 25 percent of U.S. students

are ready for college. This figure is

ACT Composite Score Performance in Illinois by Graduating Class

(extended time students excluded)

Graphic courtesy of Steve Cordogan


invalidated by all other research

I have seen, and has been refuted

by ACT’s own research. In fact,

the study ACT conducted to vali-

date the benchmarks (available at

www.act.org/research/policymakers/

pdf/2005-2.pdf) found that 65 percent

of students who met none of the

benchmarks persisted to a second

year in college with a better than

C+ average. Almost 2/3 of the very

lowest-testing students succeeded,

according to ACT’s own standard.

Obviously, the benchmarks’ value in

predicting first-year college success

is limited and utterly unworthy of a

press release.

Furthermore, ACT omitted its

own reading test from the study. The

only possible reason I can identify

is that the reading test did not have

any predictive value. Despite such

knowledge, ACT continues to use

the same reading test.

The accuracy of using tests to

measure student performance is not

simply a debate on test psychometrics

and academics. Testing and report-

ing of test data is big business, with

multi-million and even multi-bil-

lion dollar companies. This is about

money, jobs and even the survival of

major organizations when a new test

like PARCC (flawed but promising) is

introduced. If a new test is accepted,

an old test will be shoved aside, and a

testing company will be substantially

downsized or cease to exist.

Conclusion

We need to have objective mea-

sures of student and school perfor-

mance. However, the serious use of

high-stakes test data that followed

implementation of No Child Left

Behind showed that we did not

understand the limitations of such

data. Forming a conclusion, and even

an emotional reaction, around a

piece of data that we see in the media

is natural, but there is a very good

chance that our conclusions, like the

data upon which they are based, will

be inaccurate. That’s why school

leaders, the media and public need

to become more educated consumers

of test data.

Policy Services

This ad will run in the March/April 2015 of the Journal.

PRESSPolicy Reference Education Subscription Service

Plus

Never miss an update with our full-maintenance policy updating service, based on PRESS.

With PRESS Plus, we will help you keep your policy manual up to date by:• Identifying suggested policy changes for your unique district• Preserving your custom language• Providing quick and easy checklists for policy updates and options• Maintaining a consistent style and format• Saving your staff valuable time by maintaining your up-to-date policies,

legal references, cross references, tables of contents and indexesIf your policy manual is not currently up-to-date, we will help you determine which of our Policy Manual development services is right for you. Once your manual has been updated, PRESS Plus will help you ensure that your manual will never become outdated again.

For more information, please contact: Anna Lovern, Director, Policy Services - 217/528-9688, ext. 1125, [email protected]

Angie Powell, Assistant Policy Consultant - 217/528-9688, ext. 1154, [email protected]

Let PRESS Plus help you keep your policy manual up to date!

policy ads 2014.indd 10 2/2/2015 1:49:44 PM

PDLTPERA

Basicsof

Governance

OMA

2015 New Board Member WorkshopsChoose from 20 locations!

MAY 8-9Spoon River Community Outreach Center, Macomb

Holiday Inn, Mt. VernonWyndham Suites, Glenview

MAY 15-16Stoney Creek Inn, East Peoria

Hilton, Oak Lawn

MAY 29-30Gateway Center, Collinsville

Marriott, NormalHighland Community College, Freeport

JUNE 5-6Holiday Inn, Crystal Lake

Thelma Keller Convention Center, EffinghamWestin Chicago NW, Itasca

JUNE 12-13IL Valley Community College, Oglesby

Hamilton’s Catering, JacksonvilleMarriott Suites, Deerfield

JUNE 19-20Stoney Creek Inn, Moline

Wyndham Garden Inn, UrbanaHoliday Inn, Countryside

JULY 10-11Crowne Plaza, SpringfieldHoliday Inn, Carbondale

Hilton Garden Inn, Kankakee

DAY 1 - Friday

Professional Development Leadership Training (PDLT) and Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) Training — This course satisfies the requirements for mandatory board member training per Public Act 097-0008

including instruction in: education and labor law, financial oversight and accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities.

Every school board member elected in 2015 MUST complete this training within the first year of his or her first term.

Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) Training is included in order to prepare board members for their role in

implementing the “optional alternative evaluation dismissal process.”*

Open Meetings Act Training — This course satisfies the requirements for mandatory board member training per

Public Act 097-504, and focuses specifically on the law as it applies to school board meetings and members. Every

school board member newly-elected in 2015 MUST complete this training within 90 days of taking the oath of office.*

* A board member who has already complied with this requirement is not required to take this training again.

Fast-Track Into IASB’s LeaderShop AcademyAttending both days of the New Board Member Workshops fulfills the requirements for admission into the LeaderShop Academy, IASB’s exclusive recognition program for board members committed to continuous learning and professional development.

DAY 2 - SaturdayThe Basics of Governance — Hit the ground running with this essential board training

workshop! Participants will focus on board and board member roles and responsibilities, and

learn how boards in high functioning districts can make a positive impact on student learning.

For more information contact: Peggy Goone, [email protected], 217/528-9688 ext. 1103

NBM 2015 Journal Ad.indd 1 12/19/2014 3:26:35 PMjan-feb.indd 21 12/19/2014 3:28:30 PM



PERA implementation may be

like the man who fell out of a

ten-story building. As he passed the

fifth floor, he said, “So far, so good.”

PERA is the acronym for the

Performance Evaluation Reform Act

concerning terms and conditions of

teacher and principal evaluation and

employment. PERA became Illinois

law in 2010, followed by additional

reforms. It requires that, in every

Illinois school system, principals

and assistant principals be evalu-

ated by trained, pre-qualified eval-

uators (often the superintendent),

and evaluations must include data

and indicators of student growth as

a significant factor. Teachers must be

evaluated by trained evaluators (usu-

ally the principal), and again, student

growth must be included. Principals,

assistant principals and teachers must

be evaluated using four rating cate-

gories: Excellent, Proficient, Needs

Improvement, or Unsatisfactory.

With some exceptions, PERA

implementation begins Sept. 1, 2015

for districts whose student perfor-

mance ranks in the lowest 20 percent

of their type; and Sept. 1, 2016, for all

remaining districts. For more infor-

mation, see IASB’s PERA overview

for school board members at www.

iasb.com/law/PERAoverview.pdf.

Early decisions

Many school districts in Illi-

nois are seeking direction for PERA

implementation. Although this

report includes only five districts’

plans, these early decisions can

provide a good starting point. Four

of these districts must implement

PERA by Sept.1, 2015, so their joint

committees recently completed their

180-day bargaining sessions. One

is not required to implement until

2016. Although all five are elemen-

tary districts, most of the following

decisions could apply to high school

districts or unit districts.

As a facilitator, I have no stake

in decisions a joint committee makes

regarding its PERA

teacher evaluation

plan. Because my

task is to wave a

red f lag if I see a

decision that may

backfire, I do not

push any certain

agenda. Given that,

and to my surprise,

all five school districts

independently made the decisions

described below.

All five districts chose to forgo

the state’s phase-in option of imple-

menting the student growth part of

PERA. Each could have implemented

student growth at 25 percent for the

first two years, but all chose to start

directly with a 70 percent profession-

al practice and 30 percent student

growth split. The phase-in option was

deemed so insignificant that the full

measure was not worth postponing.

Determining assessments

For the two required assess-

ments, schools could choose from

three types. Type I assessments are

the most standardized, most reli-

able, least reflective of the

classroom curriculum, and

Joe Matula was

a high school

mathematics

teacher and

principal before

serving as

superintendent

for 26 years.

Now retired,

he has been

a member

of the state’s

Performance

Evaluation

Advisory

Council (PEAC)

since July 2010

and serves as a

PERA facilitator.

Early PERA implementations strike similar chordsBy Joe Matula

©Th

inks

tock


scored by an outside entity. Type II

assessments — which the districts at

hand did not choose — are approved

or adopted by a district and are typi-

cally a common assessment given by

all teachers in a grade level. Type III

assessments are the least reliable, but

most reflective of classroom curric-

ulum, and must be agreed to by the

teacher and the evaluator.

PER A requires at least one

assessment be a Type I or II, and

one a Type III. If no Type I or II can

be identified, both can be Type IIIs.

Any Type I or II may qualify as a

Type III if it aligns to curriculum

and measures student learning in

that subject area.

Assessment #1

All districts opted to make one

of their two assessments a Type I

assessment for all teachers — class-

room teachers in addition to art,

music, physical education, etc.

For their Type I assessments for

language arts and math, one school

district uses NWEA MAP, another

uses Terra Nova, one uses easyCBM

assessments, and two use STAR. Three

school districts will base Type I growth

on the higher of reading growth and

math growth. One district will let the

teacher choose. One will average read-

ing and math growth scores.

All five school districts have

made this assessment worth 5 per-

cent of the total rating.

A commitment to Type I for all

teachers motivates everyone and

draws concern to performance of the

district’s students on the standard-

ized assessment, the most visible and

publicized assessment. This com-

mitment also builds instructional

collaboration throughout the district,

which encourages cross-disciplinary

instruction.

For example, a physical educa-

tion teacher is more likely to contact

fourth-grade teachers and ask, “What

are your students doing in math?” The

fourth-grade teachers may say, “We

are starting a unit on measurement.”

The P.E. teacher can decide to inte-

grate concepts of perimeter and area in

fourth-grade P.E. classes. Students see

mathematics concepts everywhere,

not just in math class. This focus on

math and reading can pervade all cur-

riculum and instructional discussions.

The second reason Type I

assessment works for all teachers

is that it makes implementation of

PERA fairer and more consistently

applied. Everyone is judged by the 5

percent, rather than some teachers

evaluated by a Type I and a Type

III some by a Type I and a Type II,

and so on. Separate combinations of

various assessments, all with differ-

ent levels of reliability, would make

a messy and disparate evaluation

process. This is a major concern of

all teachers’ associations.

This decision also requires each

teacher to be responsible for only one

Type III assessment, rather than two.

Assessment #2

All districts opted for the second

assessment to be a Type III, decid-

ed by teacher and evaluator. This

assessment is based on teaching

a unit with a minimum interval of

instruction of four weeks. This allows

each teacher to schedule the unit

to best suit the instructional calen-

dar. Setting the unit at a minimum

of four weeks fits most naturally with

the regular flow of instruction, and

teachers will not have to manipulate

any instruction and assessments just

for PERA’s sake.

Student inclusion

Another decision the five joint

committees faced was whether to

assess all students a teacher faces, or

just one class. One district decided

to include all students. For example,

a junior high teacher would have to

assess all students who met the atten-

dance criteria, which could easily

be over 125 students. Four districts

decided to give junior high teachers

and special area teachers (such as

art and music) the choice of classes

for these unit lessons. Grades K-5

teachers, mostly with self-contained

classroom groups, will use the same

students either way and are mostly

unaffected by this issue. However,

the self-contained classroom teacher

is allowed to select the subject area

of his or her choice (not necessarily

reading or math).


Three districts set a 90 percent

attendance rate and two an 85 per-

cent rate, based on the instruction-

al lessons in the designated unit.

This means that if a student misses

the lesson, his /her data does not

count for that teacher. The prem-

ise is that it is unfair to evaluate a

teacher on student performance

when the student is not present

for lessons. One school district

decided to use school attendance

rather than classroom attendance,

because it is easier to maintain

accurate records.

A significant dilemma for joint

committees is how to handle students

who are taught the same subject by

two or more teachers. By allowing

a teacher to select the group of stu-

dents of his or her choice, general

education teacher and specialist may

end up assessing the same student(s)

for Type III assessment.

In one situation a specialist,

such as a special education teacher

or reading specialist, who goes into

the classroom and teaches a student

or small group of students, could use

a student’s data for both teachers,

or the general education teacher

would not be allowed to teach that

subject as the unit to be assessed. In

other situations, a specialist pulls a

student or group of students out of

the classroom. This is simpler as the

specialist would establish assess-

ment independent of the general

education teacher.

Some teachers, special educa-

tion for example, may have small

groups of students, which would

not provide a valid statistical sam-

ple. Unfortunately, this has to be

accepted. If the evaluation plan did

not allow small groups, even as small

as three or four students, they would

be unable to comply with PERA, as

PERA does not allow for exceptions

due to small sample sizes.

Superintendent review

For teacher reviews, all dis-

tricts opted to establish a manda-

tory review by the superintendent

or designee of all ratings of Needs

Improvement or Unsatisfactory. Both

teachers and administrators support-

ed the logic behind this requirement.

Teachers with the most at-risk rat-

ings would feel more comfortable to

know someone other than a single

individual reviewed their evalua-

tions. Superintendents supported

this, because of the opportunity to

review principals’ thoroughness and

evaluation skills. Superintendents

also liked the chance to review a rat-

ing that holds potential for objection

by the teacher. In effect, it was like

saying, “If we have to go to battle over

this, I want to make sure we have a

good case.”

Simple growth or

Student Learning Objectives

Among the five school districts,

one opted for a simple growth model,

the average difference between the

pre-test and the post-test scores.

Average growth is computed and

placed on a tiered growth scale as

below: Pre-Test Post-Test

Student A 80 90 Student B 50 60 Student C 50 80 Student D 30 40 Student E 20 60 Averages 46 66

20 divided by 46 or 43% growth

The simple growth scale would,

counting all students who met the

attendance requirement, realize the

following rankings:

• Excellent = Average Student Growth

of 50 percent or more

• Prof icient = Average Student

Growth of 25 percent to 49 percent

• Needs Improvement = Average

Student Growth of 10 percent to

24 percent

• Unsatisfactory = Average Student

Growth of 1 percent to 9 percent

Four school districts chose to

develop Student Learning Objectives

(SLOs). This process allows a teacher

to identify an expected growth level

for each student or group of students.

The teacher, based on knowledge and

information he or she has about the

students, can set differentiated growth

targets. The teacher is evaluated on

the students who meet or exceed tar-

gets. This is a more time-consuming

process for teacher and evaluator, as

it requires time to meet and agree on

growth targets. Since the evaluator,

typically the principal, can’t know

each student as well as the teacher

does, the evaluator must trust the

teacher’s judgment. Trust is the key

to the student growth process. SLOs

can be computed as below: Pre- Growth Post- Yes/ Test Target Test No

Student A 80 20 90 noStudent B 50 10 60 yesStudent C 50 30 80 yesStudent D 30 40 40 noStudent E 20 40 60 yes

3 of 5 students or 60% met their growth targets

The student learning objec-

tives scale would, counting al l

students who met the attendance


Sample

PERA Final Rating WorksheetProfessional Practice Evaluation 70%Danielson Components1a Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy 41b Demonstrating Knowledge of Students 41c Setting Instructional Outcomes 41d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources 41e Designing Coherent Instruction 41f Designing Student Assessments, 42a Creating a Climate of Respect and Rapport 42b Establishing a Culture for Learning 42c Managing Classroom Procedures 42d Managing Student Behavior 43a Communicating with Students 43b Using Questioning/Prompts, Discussion Techniques 43c Engaging Students in Learning 43d Using Assessment in Instruction 43e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness 44a Reflecting on Teaching 44b Maintaining Accurate Records 44c Communicating with Families 44d Participating in a Professional Community 44e Growing and Developing Professionally 44f Showing Professionalism 4 84

Student Growth Evaluation 30%

Student Growth 5% Type IAverage Growth of 50% or more 6Average Growth 25% to 49% 5Average Growth 10% to 24% 4Average Growth 1% to 9% 3

Student Growth 25% Type III76% or more met targeted growth 3051% to 75% met targeted growth 2525% to 50% met targeted growth 20Less than 25% met targeted growth 15

TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS = 120

FINAL RATING 108 to 120 Excellent 90%84 to 107 Proficient 70%60 to 83 Needs Improve 50%38 to 59 Unsatisfactory

requirement, realize the following

rankings:

• Excellent = 76 percent or more of

students met targeted growth

• Prof icient = 51 percent to 75

percent of students met targeted

growth

• Needs Improvement = 25 percent to

50 percent of students met targeted

growth

• Unsatisfactory = Less than 25

percent of students met targeted

growth

Other considerations

A few miscellaneous decisions

made by the joint committees were:

• Post-tests will count for student

grades because that will moti-

vate students to put forth greater

effort.

• If some rare occurrence takes

place dur ing the pre-test /

post-test interval, teachers may

file an Extenuating Circum-

stances Report for the evaluator

to consider an adjustment.

• Teachers will grade all Type III

assessments.

• All completed Type III assess-

ments will be stored in the

respective classroom or school

office, not the district office.

• In three distr icts, tenured

teachers will complete Type

III assessments during their

off-evaluation years. In the other

two districts, tenured teachers

will not complete Type IIIs in

an off year.

Final rating

Each joint committee reviewed

three options for determining the

final rating. The first one, the defi-

nition model, describes the final

rating in a narrative definition by

establishing criteria for the profes-

sional practice part by domain. For

example, three domains rated as

Excellent and one domain as Pro-

ficient would equal a final rating of

Excellent. The remaining ratings are

defined in similar fashion. Nobody

liked this one.

The second choice was a matrix,

with each rating level (from 4 to 1) of

professional practice weighted at 70

percent and each rating level of stu-

dent growth weighted at 30 percent.

These values were added together to

create each cell in a 4-by-4 matrix.

Nobody liked this one either.

Each committee chose the third

option, a mathematical one (see

chart). It measures the professional

practice portion of PERA using the

Danielson Framework. This option


Sample worksheet courtesy of Joe Matula


Robert L. Frank, 96, died Jan.

18, 2015. He served on the Deer

Creek-Mackinaw school board for

two terms.

Barbara Busse Lawson Hales,

88, died Dec. 31, 2014. She was very

active in the community and served

as the second female member of the

Kenilworth SD 38 Board of Education.

Ronald D. Henning, 82, died

Jan. 4, 2015. He formerly served on

the Meridian School Board.

Donald Gene Henry, 82, died

Dec. 26, 2014. He previously served

as a school board member for the

Oakland district.

Harold E. “Butch” Hoagland

Jr., 65, died Dec. 23, 2014. He was a

member of the Ashland and A-C Cen-

tral school boards for many years,

including over 16 years as board

president.

David C. Holliday, 88, died Jan.

6, 2015. He was a past member of the

Pana school board.

Mark Johnson, 66, died Dec. 13,

2014. He was a current Board of Edu-

cation member at Willowbrook High

School District 88. He served on the

board since 1999 and was president

from 2003 to 2011. He received the

school’s distinguished alumni award

in 2012. Johnson also served as dep-

uty chief of police for the Villa Park

Police Department

Harold R. Keleher, 90, died Dec.

28, 2014. He previously served on the

Scales Mound school board.

Vernon L. Laird Jr., 85, died Dec.

2, 2014. He had formerly served on the

school board for Rankin High School.

Clarence “Red” Lowery, Jr., 88,

died Jan. 16, 2015. He was an active

member of the Benton community,

serving on the Benton High School

board for more than a decade.

Ray Lynn, 70, died Jan. 29, 2015.

He was an 18-year board member of

the West Richland CUSD#1. He taught

automotive classes at Wabash Valley

College and at Olney Central College

for 30 years. Lynn was active in local

pilot and flying clubs, and flew 300

area students in the Young Eagles Pro-

gram in his Piper Tri-Pacer airplane.

Richard L. Maloney, 83, died

Dec. 31, 2014. He previously served

on the Ridgway school board.

Fredrick J. Porzelius, 81, died

Dec. 9, 2014. He had formerly served

on the Gridley High School board.

Walter E. Pyle Sr., 82, died Jan.

17, 2015. A career teacher, he was the

former vice president of the Wood Riv-

er-Hartford District 15 school board.

Shirley Mae Rauschenberger,

88, died Dec. 15, 2014. She was a for-

mer Community Consolidated SD 46

school board member. She was also

one of the first editors of the Elgin

Free Press, which became the Elgin

Herald. After retiring, she remained

active in political campaigns, espe-

cially her son Steve’s campaigns for

Illinois State Senate.

Carlton L. Redfern, 92, died

Dec. 9, 2014. He was a former mem-

ber of the Northwestern CUSD 2

Board of Education.

Charles Rice, 55, died Dec. 19,

2014. At the time of his passing he

was a sitting member of the DuQuoin

CUSD 300 Board of Education.

Leslie “Clyde” Robertson, 92,

died Jan. 12, 2015. He served two

terms on the Marion Unit 2 school

board and was active in communi-

ty service in his hometown of Creal

Springs. In 1996 an annual award,

called the Clyde Robertson Commu-

nity Service Award, was established

in his honor.

George Arnold “Bub” Roquet,

88, died Jan. 23, 2015. He was a

Winola School Board member.

John V. Schwarzentraub, 89,

died Jan. 1, 2015. He was a former

member of the Washington CHSD

308 Board of Education.

Isabella “Ruth” Stark, 81, died

Dec. 2, 2014. She served on the Fox

Lake Grade School board from 1971

to 1974.

Paul W. Sunderland, 95, died

Jan. 16, 2015. A physician, he was

former member of Gibson City Board

of Education.

Robert J. Taylor, 81, died Jan.

7, 2015. He served several terms on

the Riverton CUSD 14 Board of Edu-

cation.

Robert Joseph Verdun, 68, died

Dec. 2, 2014. He was a member of

the board of education for Odell

Community school districts 435 and

160. He also served as superinten-

dent of schools in Colfax, Robinson,

Argenta, Tonica Spring Valley, and

Shelbyville until his retirement in

2011. He also served on the board

of directors and legislative commit-

tee for Illinois Association of School

Administrators.

William L. Wagoner, 87, died

Dec. 29, 2014. He previously was a

member of the Sherrard school board

for 13 years

John James Warner, 81, died

Dec. 18, 2014. He formerly served

on the school board for Mattoon

CUSD 2.

Dennis L. Whitten, 68, died Jan.

20, 2015. He was a former member of

the Vandalia CUSD 203 school board.

Alfred Wilson Jr., 80, died Jan.

8, 2015. He previously served on the

North Chicago District 64 Board of

Education.

Milestones continued from page 32


A Directory of your

IASB Service Associates

IASB Service Associates are businesses which offer school‑related products and services and which have earned favorable repu tations for quality and integrity. Only after screening by the Service Associates Executive Committee is a business firm invited by the IASB Board of Directors to become a Service Associate.

Appraisal ServicesINDUSTRIAL APPRAISAL COMPANY — Insurance

appraisals, property control reports. Oakwood Terrace ‑ 630/827‑0280

Architects/EngineersALLIED DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. —

Architectural programming, site planning & design, architectural and interior design, and construction administration. Springfield ‑ 217/522‑3355

ARCON ASSOCIATES, INC. — Full service firm specializing in educational facilities with services that include architecture, construction management, roof and masonry consulting, landscape architecture and environmental consulting. Lombard ‑ 630/495‑1900; website: www.arconassoc.com; email: [email protected]

BAYSINGER DESIGN GROUP, INC. — Architectural design services. Marion ‑ 618/998‑8015

BERG ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD. — Consulting engineers. Schaumburg ‑ 847/352‑4500; website: www.berg-eng.com

BLDD ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architectural and engineering services for schools. Decatur ‑ 217/429‑5105; Champaign ‑ 217/356‑9606; Bloomington ‑ 309/828‑5025; Chicago ‑ 312/829‑1987

BRADLEY & BRADLEY — Architects, engineers and asbestos consultants. Rockford ‑ 815/968‑9631; website: www.bradleyandbradley.net/

CANNON DESIGN — Architects. Chicago ‑ 312/960‑8034; website: www.cannondesign.com; email: [email protected]

CM ENGINEERING, INC. — Specializing in ultra efficient geo-exchange HVAC engineering solu-tions for schools, universities and commercial facil-ities. Columbia, MO ‑ 573/874‑9455; website: www. cmeng.com

CORDOGAN CLARK & ASSOCIATES — Architects and engineers; Aurora ‑ 630/896‑4678; website: www.cordoganclark.com; email: rmont@cordogan clark.com

DESIGN ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architecture, engi-neering, planning and interior design. Hillsboro ‑ 217/532‑3959, East St. Louis ‑ 618/398‑0890, Marion ‑ 618/998‑0075, Springfield ‑ 217/787‑1199; email: [email protected]

DEWBERRY ARCHITECTS INC. — Architects, plan-ners, landscape architecture and engineers. Peoria ‑ 309/282‑8000; Chicago ‑ 312/660‑8800; Elgin ‑ 847/695‑5480; website: www.dewberry.com

DLA ARCHITECTS, LTD. — Architects specializ-ing in preK-12 educational design, including a full range of architectural services; assessments, plan-ning, feasibility studies, new construction, additions, remodeling, O&M and owner’s rep services. Itasca ‑ 847/742‑4063; website: www.dla-ltd.com; email: [email protected]

DLR GROUP — Educational facility design and master planning. Chicago ‑ 312/382‑9980; website: dlrgroup.com; email: [email protected]

ERIKSSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LTD. — Consulting civil engineers and planners. Grayslake ‑ 847/223‑4804

FANNING/HOWEY ASSOCIATES, INC. — School planning and design with a focus on K-12 schools. Park Ridge ‑ 847/292‑1039

FGM ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS, INC. — Architects. Oak Brook ‑ 630/574‑8300; Peoria ‑ 309/669‑0012; O’Fallon ‑ 618/624‑3364; St. Louis ‑ 314/439‑1601 website: www.fgmarchitects.com

GREENASSOCIATES, INC. — Architecture/construc-tion services. Deerfield ‑ 847/317‑0852, Pewaukee, WI ‑ 262/746‑1254; website: www.greenassociates. com; email: [email protected]

HEALY, BENDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Archi-tects/Planners. Naperville, 630/904‑4300; website: www.healybender.com; email: [email protected]

JH2B ARCHITECTS — Architects. Kankakee ‑ 815/ 933‑5529; website: www.JH2B.com

KENYON AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, INC. — Complete architectural services for education. Peoria ‑ 309/674‑7121

KLUBER ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS — Building design professionals specializing in architecture, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and fire protection engineers. Batavia ‑ 630/406‑1213

LARSON & DARBY GROUP — Architecture, Engineering, Interior Design & Technology. Rockford ‑ 815/484‑0739, St. Charles ‑ 630/444‑2112; website: www.larsondarby.com; email: snelson@ larsondarby. com

LEGAT ARCHITECTS, INC. — Architectural and Educational planners who specialize in creating effective student learning environments. Chicago ‑ 312/258‑1555; Oak Brook ‑ 630/990‑3535; Crystal Lake ‑ 815/477‑4545

PCM+D — Provide a full range of architectural ser-vices including facility and feasibility studies, archi-tectural design construction, consulting and related services. East Peoria ‑ 309/694‑5012

PERKINS+WILL — Architects; Chicago ‑ 312/755‑0770

RICHARD L. JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. — Architecture, educational planning. Rockford ‑ 815/398‑1231

RUCKPATE ARCHITECTURE — Architects, engi-neers, interior design. Barrington ‑ 847/381‑2946; website: www.ruckpate.com; email: info@ruck pate.com

SARTI ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. — Architecture, engineering, life safety consulting, interior design and asbestos consultants. Springfield ‑ 217/585‑9111

STR PARTNERS — Architectural, interior design, planning, cost estimating and building enclosure/ roofing consulting. Chicago ‑ 312/464‑1444

TRIA ARCHITECTURE — Full service architectural firm providing planning, design, construction obser-vation and interior design. Burr Ridge ‑ 630/455‑4500

WIGHT & COMPANY — An integrated services firm with solutions for the built environment. Darien ‑ 630/696‑7000; website: www.wightco.com; email: [email protected]

WM. B. ITTNER, INC. — Full service architectural firm serving the educational community since 1899. Fairview Heights ‑ 618/624‑2080

WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS — Specializing in Pre-K-12 educational design includ-ing master planning, sustainable design, architec-ture, mechanical and electrical engineering, quality review, cost estimation and management. Palatine ‑ 847/241‑6100

WRIGHT & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Architecture and construction management. Metamora ‑ 309/367‑2924

Building Construction CORE CONSTRUCTION — Professional construction

management, design-build and general contracting services. Morton ‑ 309/266‑9768; website: www. COREconstruct.com

FREDERICK QUINN CORPORATION — Construction management and general contracting. Addison ‑ 630/628‑8500; website: www.fquinncorp.com

HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. — Full service Construction Management and General Contracting firm specializing in education facilities. Swansea ‑ 618/277‑8870

MANGIERI COMPANIES, INC. — Construction man-agement and general contractor capabilities. Peoria ‑ 309/688‑6845

POETTKER CONSTRUCTION — Construction man-agement, design/build and general contracting ser-vices. Hillsboro ‑ 217/532‑2507

S.M. WILSON & CO. — Provides construction man-agement and general construction services to edu-cation, healthcare, commercial, retail and industrial clients. St. Louis, MO ‑ 314/645‑9595

THE GEORGE SOLLITT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Full-service construction manage-ment general contractor with a primary focus on educational facilities. Wood Dale ‑ 630/860‑7333; website: www.sollitt.com; email: [email protected]

TRANE — HVAC company specializing in design, build, and retrofit. Willowbrook ‑ 630/734‑6033


Computer SoftwareSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. — Administrative

Software. Tremont ‑ 888/776‑3897; website: www.sti-k12.com; email: [email protected]

ConsultingeRATE PROGRAM, LLC — consulting services

assisting districts in processing applications for receiving government funds to cover up to 90% of costs for local, long-distance and cellular phone ser-vice (purchased by the school), internet access and web hosting. St. Louis, MO ‑ 314/282‑3665

SEGAL CONSULTING — A comprehensive array of consulting services including Health & Welfare; Retirement Plan; Claims Audit; Compliance; Communications; Administration & Technology; and Compensation and Bargaining. Chicago ‑ 312/984‑8512

Environmental ServicesALPHA CONTROLS & SERVICES, LLC — Facility

Management Systems, Automatic Temperature Controls, Access Control Systems, Energy Saving Solutions; Sales, Engineering, Installation, Commissioning and Service. Rockford, Springfield, Champaign: toll‑free 866‑ALPHA‑01 (866‑252‑4201); website: www.alphaACS.com; email: info@alphaacs. com

CTS-CONTROL TECHNOLOGY & SOLUTIONS — Performance contracting, facility improvements and energy conservation projects. St. Louis, MO ‑ 636/230‑0843; Chicago ‑ 773/633‑0691; website: www.thectsgroup.com; email: rbennett@thectsgroup. com

DEFRANCO PLUMBING, INC. — Plumbing service work including rodding, sewer camera work, domes-tic water pumps, testing rpz’s, green technology as related to plumbing. Palatine ‑ 847/438‑0808

ENERGY SYSTEMS GROUP — A comprehensive energy services and performance contracting com-pany providing energy, facility and financial solutions. Itasca ‑ 630/773‑7203

GCA SERVICES GROUP — Custodial, janitorial, maintenance, lawn & grounds, and facility operations services. Downers Grove ‑ 630/629‑4044

GRP MECHANICAL CO. INC. — Performance con-tracting, basic and comprehensive building renova-tions with a focus on energy and mechanical mainte-nance services. Bethalto ‑ 618/779‑0050

HONEYWELL, INC. — Controls, maintenance, energy management, performance contracting and security. St. Louis, Mo ‑ 314‑548‑4136; Arlington Heights ‑ 847/391‑3133; email: [email protected]

IDEAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, INC. — Asbestos and environmental services. Bloomington ‑ 309/828‑4259

OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES — Turnkey partner-ship programs that enable K12 school districts in Illinois to modernize their facilities, increase safety, security and efficiency, reduce operations costs, and maximize the lifespan of critical assets. Oakbrook ‑ 312/498‑7792; email: [email protected]

RADON DETECTION SPECIALISTS — Commercial radon surveys. Burr Ridge ‑ 800/244‑4242; website: www.radondetection.net; email: kirstenschmidt@ radonresults.com

Financial ServicesAMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY —

Specializing in Section 125 compliance, 403(b) plan administration, flexible spending accounts, health savings accounts, dependent audits, and health care reform. Fairview Heights ‑ 855/822‑9168

BERNARDI SECURITIES, INC. — Public finance consulting, bond issue services and referendum support. Fairview Heights ‑ 618/206‑4180; Chicago ‑ 312/281‑2014; email: [email protected]

EHLERS & ASSOCIATES — School bond issues; referendum help; financial and enrollment studies. Lisle ‑ 630/271‑3330; website: www.ehlers-inc.com; email: [email protected]

FIRST MIDSTATE, INC. — Bond issue consultants. Bloomington ‑ 309/829‑3311; email: paul@first midstate.com

GORENZ AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. — Auditing and financial consulting. Peoria ‑ 309/685‑7621; website: www.gorenzcpa.com; email: tcustis@gorenz cpa.com

KINGS FINANCIAL CONSULTING, INC. — Municipal bond financial advisory service including all types of school bonds; school referenda, county school sales tax; tax revenue forecasts/projections. Monticello ‑ 217/762‑4578

MATHIESON, MOYSKI, AUSTIN & CO., LLP — Provides audit, consulting and other related financial services to Illinois school districts, joint agreements and risk pools. Wheaton ‑ 630/653‑1616

SPEER FINANCIAL, INC. — Financial planning and bond issue services. Chicago ‑ 312/346‑3700; website: www.speerfinancial.com; email: dphillips@ speerfinancial.com

STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC. — Full service securities firm providing investment banking and advisory services including strategic financial planning; bond underwriting; and referendum and legislative assistance ‑ Edwardsville ‑ 800/230‑5151; email: [email protected]

WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY — Bond issuance, financial advisory services. Chicago ‑ 312/364‑8955; email: [email protected]

WINTRUST FINANCIAL — Financial services holding company engaging in community banking, wealth management, commercial insurance premium financing, and mortgage origination. Rosemont ‑ 630/560‑2120

Human Resource ConsultingBUSHUE HUMAN RESOURCES, INC. — Human

resource, safety and risk management, insurance consulting. Effingham ‑ 217/342‑3042; website: www.bushuehr.com; email: steve@bushuehr. com

InsuranceTHE SANDNER GROUP CLAIMS MANAGEMENT,

INC. — Third party administrator for worker’s comp and insurance claims. Chicago ‑ 800/654‑9504

Superintendent SearchesHYA EXECUTIVE SEARCH, A DIVISION OF ECRA

GROUP, INC. - Superintendent searches, board and superintendent workshops. Rosemont ‑ 847/318‑0072

PERA continued from page 28

uses ratings of 4, 3, 2, and 1, total-

ing 84 points, for 21 of the 22 Dan-

ielson components. The student

growth portion is described in the

right-hand column. Each student

growth portion provides a number

of points. When added to the pro-

fessional practice part, this gives a

total that can be compared to the

final rating chart in the bottom right-

hand corner. Note all cut score levels

would be determined by the joint

committees (the ones in the sample

are arbitrary). Each of these school

districts plans to collect survey data

from teachers during a pilot phase

in early 2015 to adjust cut scores.

For more about the Danielson

framework, visit danielsongroup.

org/.

Conclusion

Described above are the prima-

ry decisions to be considered by

joint committees implementing

PERA. I am a five-year member of

PEAC (Performance Evaluation

Advisory Council), an I l l inois

superintendent of 26 years and a

tenured university professor who

taught many teacher evaluation

classes and Danielson training ses-

sions. Most importantly, as a facil-

itator, I listened to the five joint

committees independently analyze

the above decisions. Given that

background, I feel the model

described above is the fairest, the

most practical and the most educa-

tionally sound way to meet the

PERA requirements.


Milestones

Robert “Bob” Bogard, 72, died

Jan. 6, 2015. Bogard was the sitting

president of the Board of Education

in Knoxville CUSD 202, serving in

his third term. His leadership was

instrumental in several projects with-

in the school district, including the

construction of the sports complex

and the new high school.

Richard Bokor, 66, died Jan. 4,

2015. A former teacher, he was the

vice president of the Palatine District

15 school board. Among his many

accomplishments and community

and educational involvements, Bokor

was an IASB Master Board Member.

Barbara Jean (Sewell) Burwash,

79, died Dec. 10, 2014. She was a for-

mer member of the Bismarck-Henning

school board, serving for 10 years.

Robert I. Butler, 88, died Dec. 2,

2014. He formerly served as a mem-

ber and president of the Saybrook-Ar-

rowsmith school board for 12 years.

Ronald Cornelius, 73, died Dec.

18, 2014. He was a former member

of the Joliet Township High school

board.

Richard “Dick” Cronholm, 79,

died Dec. 18, 2014. He previously

served Taft School District as a school

board member for 12 years.

Charles “Chuck” E. Diehl, 87,

died Dec. 9, 2014. Diehl was a former

Mt. Morris school board member.

Ralph E. Durham, 89, died Dec.

24, 2014. He served on and was for-

mer president of the District 50 Board

of Education in Sunnyland.

David R. Endress, 89, died Dec.

21, 2014. He formerly served on the

Sparland District 3 Board of Education.

Donald “Don” James Foster, 76,

died Jan. 23, 2015. He was a former

member of the Sterling Unit 5 school

board, serving as board president for

two years.

AchievementsJef f Mays , a

former Illinois state

representative and

sitting Quincy SD

172 school board

member and board

vice president, has been named to

Governor Bruce Rauner’s cabinet.

Mays will oversee state unemploy-

ment insurance and benefits in his

capacity as director of the Illinois

Department of Employment Security,

pending Senate confirmation of his

appointment. He resigned his school

board position on Jan. 13. Mays says

it will be a challenge to sustain the

state agency given funding cuts from

the federal government. He says he

has worked with Rauner previously

and is excited for the opportunity.

The remaining six members of the

Quincy School Board appointed

Steve Krause, a former board mem-

ber, to fill Mays’ term. Krause will

serve until four new board members

are seated after the April 7 election.

Ma rk Vond-

racek , president

of the Woodland

CCSD 50 Board of

Education, has been

nominated for a $1

million prize. A physics teacher at

Evanston Township High School,

he will compete for the $1 million

Varkey GEMS Foundation Global

Teacher Prize. Vondracek, a Gurn-

ee resident, is one of 50 teachers

worldwide placed on the shortlist

for the award, which is given to one

exceptional teacher who has made

an outstanding contribution to the

profession. Vondracek is in his 17th

year of teaching at ETHS, and he

sponsors or coaches seven different

science and physics-related academic

teams or contests. The 46-year-old

Ph.D. also publishes regularly. The

winner of the prize will be announced

in March at the Global Education and

Skills Forum in Dubai.

In memoriam


A S K T H E S T A F F

Q uestion: What can new school

board members do to launch

their board career successfully?

Answer: Congratulations to all

new board members!

Every other year, the Illinois Asso-

ciation of School Boards offers New

Board Member Workshops to help its

newest members acquire the knowl-

edge, skills and resources to become

effective school leaders. Workshops

fulfill state-mandated training and

provide a “fast-track” for admission

into IASB’s LeaderShop Academy.

New Board Member Workshops

— IASB offers 20 this year, more

than ever before — will take place

across Illinois on Fridays and Satur-

days in May, June and July.

State law mandates that every

school board member elected for

the first time in 2015 complete Pro-

fessional Development Leadership

Training (PDLT) in the first year

of his/her term. Re-elected board

members who have not already done

so must also complete PDLT. New

Board Member Workshops include

PDLT, covering education and labor

law, financial oversight and account-

ability, and fiduciary responsibili-

ties. This training will also include

a component on the Performance

Evaluation Reform Act (PERA).

Illinois law also requires that

newly elected school board mem-

bers complete Open Meetings Act

(OMA) training within 90 days of

taking the oath of office. IASB focus-

es on both the Open Meetings Act

and the School Code as they apply to

school board members and meetings.

All sessions covering state require-

ments take place on Friday of each

New Board Member Workshop.

Board members only need to

take PDLT, PERA and OMA train-

ing one time.

In addition to mandated train-

ing, New Board Member Workshops

also offer Basics of Governance, with

a focus on board and board member

roles and responsibilities, plus net-

working and decision-making skills.

The Basics of Governance compo-

nent of these workshops occurs on

Saturday of each event.

Along with valuable training

and essential information, New

Board Member Workshops offer a

“fast track” to becoming a mem-

ber of the LeaderShop Academy,

IASB’s professional development

and recognition program. To qualify

for the LeaderShop Academy, the

Basics of Governance workshop is

required, along with two additional

courses. The state-mandated PDLT

and OMA workshops will complete

the admission requirements into the

Academy.

For more information, including

a list of New Board Member work-

shop dates and locations, see page

24 or visit www.iasb.com/calendar/

newBMworkshops2015.pdf.

To register online, determine the

workshop you wish to attend, and find

its registration link on the calendar

at www.iasb.com/calendar/.

Nesa Brauer

is a trainer in

IASB’s Board

Development

department.

She answers

the question in

this issue of The

Journal.

IASB offers essential workshops for new board membersBy Nesa Brauer

NON-PROFIT PRST STANDARD

US POSTAGE PAIDILLINOIS

ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

2921 Baker DriveSpringfield, Illinois 62703-5929

Address Service Requested

www.iasb.com

Mar-Apr 2015

For the complete list of districts and counties served go to www.iasb.com/executive

No other search professionals know your area of the state better than the Executive Search team at IASB. In the past 6 years the IASB team has assisted 167 member districts within 64 different counties with their superintendent search.

For further information regarding the IASB Executive Search process, please contact: 217/528-9688, ext. 1217 or 630/629-3776, ext. 1217.

Represents the 64 counties served.

exec search ads new 2015.indd 3 2/10/2015 9:27:22 AM

Documents

The Illinois School Board Journal, March/April 2015