ESSA talking points for ISBE 'listening tour'
The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) is conducting its third round of "listening tours" to collect input and feedback from education stakeholders around the state regarding the implementation of ESSA and the state's draft plan that was released last week. The State's Draft Plan and supporting material can be found
here. On November 18, ISBE posted the second draft of the plan, which can be found
here .
The schedule of the ISBE tour can be found here.
The focus of this listening tour will be for direct feedback on the state's ESSA Draft Plan 2. This includes, but is not limited to, the state's plan for implementing ESSA in the areas of assessment, accountability and systems of support, as well as providing educational and financial support to educators and students.
For those planning to attend one of the sessions, here for your review and consideration are a couple of key talking points:
- Assessment and Accountability: It is imperative that the state's plan maintain as much local flexibility as possible when it comes to assessment and accountability. Assessment and tracking student achievement in Math and English Language in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school is important. However, to the extent possible, student assessment should be more than one test or series of tests given during one time of the year.
Further,assessment and accountability should measure and examine the "whole child" and be something that is a well-rounded view of the student, as well as the entire systematic approach used for educating the child. Significant weight should be afforded not to just academic indicators, but other indicators of student success and student quality, such as indicators that when properly supported drive continuous growth.
- Accountability Weights: As stated in the Draft Plan, ESSA requires the state to develop a state-wide accountability system that must include the following key elements:
- Long-Term Goals and Measurement of Interim Progress; and
- At a minimum, four distinct indicators of student performance, measured for all students and separately for each subgroup of students for each school, including:
- Academic Achievement (K-12)
- English Language Proficiency (K-12)
- Student Growth or another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator (K-8)
- Graduation Rate (9-12) and
- At least one school quality or student successor indicator
On page 32, ISBE highlights the "school quality or student successor indicators" that stakeholders have been discussing. We continue to research chronic absenteeism, 9th Grade on Track, Grade 3-8 Readiness Indicators, College and Career Readiness and School Climate Survey. We continue to research and support the possible inclusion of the first four. However, at this time, we are not supportive of including inside the accountability measure the 5 Essentials Survey, due to the fact that it does not currently meet requirements of ESSA.
On pages 24-32, the State Draft Plan 2 details the different student growth models that are being considered. It is our understanding that this list may not be exhaustive. We have advocated for a model that (1) looks at growth independent of proficiency, (2) does not mathematically prohibit all students and schools from receiving favorable growth scores, (3) is equitable and sensitive at the extremes of academic achievement, (4) is transparent, and (5) easy to communicate. As this work further develops, we will continue to use these principles to guide our work.
On pages 33-37, ISBE is seeking input as to what weights should be assigned to each indicator. We strongly feel that as much weight as possible should be give to any school quality or student successor indicators that are chosen. We would advocate for as much as 49 percent be given to indicators that are not directly linked to student assessment. In the Draft Plan 2, the state indicated that it would like to see that proficiency, growth/graduation rates, and EL proficiency be afforded equal weight. Based on preliminary conversations we have had with English Learner Advocates, we do not support equal weighting between the three categories, rather between 10 percent and 15 percent on EL Proficiency and the remainder to Growth and Proficiency. Until the State defines the growth model that it will be using, we do not have a firm position on whether Growth/Graduation Rates and Proficiency should be weighted equally.
On Pages 37-50, the Draft Plan 2, ISBE is seeking input regarding long-term/interim goals, as well as the delivery of assistance/system of support for Districts and Schools. This work is ever changing, but your input from the field is absolutely imperative in these two areas.
If you have levels of expertise in these specific areas and/or have strong opinions regarding the State Draft Plan 2, we strongly encourage you review the Draft Plan 2 and attend one of the listening tours. It has always been IASA position that any accountability system should be balanced and fair.
To conclude, we encourage you to be part of this process. We are meeting weekly with many stakeholders as well as members on this very important work. If, upon review of the Draft Plan 2, questions and/or concerns arise or if you would like further talking points and/or our assistance in the process, please do not hesitate to contact Sara Boucek. If you cannot attend one of the meetings, we encourage you to send your comments on the Draft Plan 2 to ISBE at [email protected]. We hope you will engage in this process and let your very important voice be heard.
IASA
