On March 18, 2024, the District 65 School Board entered into a three-year “Performance Based Superintendent’s Contract” with Angel Turner. The contract contains eight goals that the School Board will use to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the superintendent. Because the goals are used to evaluate the superintendent, the goals conceptually set the priorities of the School Board.
Yet not one of the eight goals contains a clear statement that student performance will be improved and not one of the goals contains a clear statement that student achievement will be increased. In addition, the contract does not specify the indicators or measures that the board will use to determine whether student performance has improved and whether student achievement has increased.
Without clear goals to improve student performance and student achievement, the contract arguably fails to comply with Section 10-23.8 of the Illinois School Code. But aside from the question of whether or not the contract complies with the school code, it is unclear why clear goals to improve student performance and increase student achievement are not included as goals in the new superintendent’s contract.
While the board approved the contract in an open meeting on March 18, the goals were not discussed or debated by the School Board in an open meeting.
On April 15, the RoundTable asked Sergio Hernandez, President of the District 65 School Board and a signer of the contract, whether the board discussed the goals and indicators during closed session meetings and, if so when, and if Turner participated in the preparation of the goals in her capacity as interim superintendent or in her capacity as a candidate for the superintendent position.
The RoundTable asked Hernandez to respond to these and other questions by email, by phone or in a meeting no later than noon on April 22. He did not respond.
Requirements in the Illinois School Code
Under Section 10-23.8 of the Illinois School Code, a school board may enter into a multi-year contract with a superintendent only if it is a “performance-based contract.” The statute mandates that this type of contract “be linked to student performance and academic improvement” and that it “include the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement determined by the school board to measure the performance and effectiveness of the superintendent.”
Under this statute, “No performance-based contract shall be extended or rolled-over prior to its scheduled expiration unless all the performance and improvement goals contained in the contract have been met.”
Shortly after the passage of Section 10-23.8, Marcilene Dutton, associate executive director of the Illinois Association of School Administrators, said in an article published in the Illinois State School Law Quarterly that a multi-year contract with a superintendent “must contain at least two goals (one related to ‘student performance’ and the other related to the ‘academic improvement of the schools within the district’)” and “there must be indicators or measurements outlined in the agreement on how attainment or non-attainment of the goals will be determined.”*
Dutton cited as an example that a student performance goal is “student attendance rates shall be increased.” An example of an academic improvement goal is “student standardized testing scores shall improve.” And the contract must identify indicators or the measures that the School Board will use in determining if the goals are met.*
Goals in Turner’s contract
The School Board’s performance-based contract with Turner does not contain a clearly stated goal that student performance shall be improved or that student achievement shall be improved. In addition, the contract does not specify the indicators or measures that the board will use to determine if student performance and student achievement have in fact been improved.
Goal #1 of the superintendent’s contract provides: “Consistently apply an equity lens to systems, policies, and practices to ensure that the most marginalized students have access to high quality education and support services.”
While this sounds good, it is not a measurable goal. The phrase “most marginalized students” is not defined and raises a number of questions: Does it mean students who score below a certain achievement level and if so, what level and on what test? Does it include students who have a disability and, if so, what disability? Does it include students who are English Language Learners and if so, what criteria are used? Does it include all students in certain racial/ethnic groups and if so, which ones?
Likewise, the phrase “high quality education and support services” is not defined. It also raises questions: Does it mean grade-level instruction? Does it mean instruction designed to improve critical thinking skills, such as through the use of thoughtful questions or instruction that engages students though productive struggle or project-based learning? Does it mean instruction provided by a teacher who is rated “excellent”? And how does the district determine if high quality instruction is, in fact, taking place in a classroom and in support sessions?
Even if these terms were defined, where is the district now in providing the most marginalized students high quality education and support services? Where does the district want to be in three years? What measures will the district use to determine if the goal will be met?
None of these questions is answered. The RoundTable asked Hernandez to answer these and other questions. He did not respond.
While Section 10-23-8 of the School Code does not require that any specific criteria be adopted, it does require “improvement related to student and academic performance,” and that the goals be “measurable.”**
Goal # 2 provides: “Establish metrics to actively address the racialized gap in opportunity for Black and Brown students to track progress, programs practices and initiatives.”
A goal to “establish metrics” sometime in the future is inadequate. Courts have held that a goal in a superintendent’s multi-year contract to “establish” performance and academic goals by a specified date in the future does not meet the requirements of Section 10-23.8. The goals and indicators must be in the contract when it is entered into.***
And even if the metrics were established by the Superintendent, there is no requirement in the contract that the superintendent meet them. The goal is simply to establish the metrics, not to increase student achievement.
Goal #4 provides: “Develop thoughtful change management and transition plans for significant District initiatives that address the cultural, social, and emotional as well as the logistical challenges of change. Initiatives include opening of 5th Ward school, middle school dual language expansion, SAP III process and alignment of programs (SpEd, early childhood, TWI).”
This goal is vague and not measurable. It does not require that student performance and student achievement be improved. And again, it does not specify the indicators or measures that the School Board will use to determine if student performance or academic achievement have improved.
The remaining goals
The remaining goals in the contract do not meet the requirement of Section 10-23.8:
- Goal #3: in lieu of residency in the District, the superintendent shall “be a presence as a leader in the community.”
- Goal #5: ensure sustainable and long-term financial health of the district.
- Goal #6: build relationships and create a culture of collaboration with Evanston Township High School, the city, Northwestern University and all staff and institutional partners in the community.
- Goal #7: continue clear and transparent communications to the board, staff, families and the community regarding the district’s work.
- Goal #8: continue updating and putting clear operational practices in place to help alleviate and eliminate grievances from employees and run the district more efficiently.
None of these is a goal to improve student performance or student achievement and there are no indicators to determine if the student performance and student achievement have in fact improved.
As a matter of policy, why is there no achievement goal?
Aside from the question of whether or not the superintendent’s contract complies with the requirements of Section 10-23.8, if the School Board is serious about reducing the achievement gap, why doesn’t the contract contain a clear, measurable goal to do so.
About 18 months ago, the district adopted eight student achievement goals. One was to increase the percentage of students who met expectations on the Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR) in reading and math from a baseline percentage of 40% to 55% by 2027.
The IAR is administered annually by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) to third through eighth graders in the state. ISBE says meeting expectations on the IAR means a student has demonstrated “readiness” for the next grade level and is “likely on track for college and careers.”
On the 2023 IAR, only 16% of Black eighth-graders, 20% of Hispanic eighth-graders, 48% of Asian eighth graders, 57% of white eighth graders met expectations in English Language Arts (ELA). The data is more stark for Black, Hispanic, and Asian eighth graders in math.
The charts below provide the district’s 2023 IAR results for third and eighth graders on the ELA and math portions of the test.
Many students are performing below ISBE’s grade level standards and are not on track to college and career readiness.
Yet, the School Board did not include a goal to increase the percentage of Black and Hispanic students who meet expectations on the IAR in the superintendent’s contract. Nor did it include a goal to increase the percentage of any other subgroup of students who meet expectations on the IAR.
The board could have used other measures, such as increasing the average test scores of students on the IAR or another test in specified grade levels; increase the percentage of third graders who are reading proficiently, measured by specified scores on the IAR or another standardized test; and/or increase the percentage of eighth graders who are on track to college and career readiness, using specified scores on the IAR or another standardized test.
On April 15, the RoundTable asked Hernandez why the School Board did not include a goal in the superintendent’s contract that the district will increase the percentage of students who meet expectations on the IAR or on any other standardized test? Hernandez did not respond.
In addition, the School Board’s contract with the new superintendent does not contain a clearly stated goal to improve student performance. One simple goal would be to reduce the rate of chronic truancy of students. In 2023, the rate of chronic truancy for all students in the District was 20.8%; for Black students it was 33.9%, according to the district’s report card on ISBE’s website.
Absent clearly stated goals to increase student performance and student achievement, together with measures to use to determine if the goals are met, it is nearly impossible to hold the superintendent accountable for student performance and achievement.
Prior superintendent contracts
In the three multi-year contracts that the District 65 School Board entered into with superintendents prior to the one with Superintendent Turner, the district set measurable goals for student achievement and performance – although as time has passed, the board’s expectations for its superintendents appears to have decreased.
Goren’s 2017 contract. On Jan. 23, 2017, the School Board entered into a five-year performance-based contract with Superintendent Paul Goren. The contract contained many academic achievement and student performance goals. The general goal statements included “reducing achievement gaps, with specific focus on k-3 interventions and early literacy;” maintaining “a strong educational vision that includes helping all students be college, career and citizenship ready;” and “providing equal opportunity, equitable outcomes and the best education possible to each student.”
The goals included implementation of many strategies and programs to develop culturally relevant teaching practices; to hire and retain teachers from diverse backgrounds; to establish learning communities where teachers and administrators identify best practices focused on equity and academic achievement for all and reducing the achievement gap; and to expand social and emotional learning programs.
The outcome metrics in Goren’s contract were fairly comprehensive and set high expectations. They were:
- “Increase the percent of students grades 3-8, meeting 2015 college career readiness benchmarks on MAP [the Measure of Academic Progress test],
- “Decrease the percent of students grades 3-8 at or below the 25th percentile (2015 norms) on MAP,
- “Increase the percent of students grades 4-8 making expected gains (2015 norms) on MAP,
- “Increase the number of subgroups making growth targets (as measured by 2015 college readiness benchmarks on MAP) for students in grades 3-8,
- “Decrease the percent of students who have more than one ODR (office disciplinary referral) for a major infraction.”
Horton’s 2019 Contract. In December 2019, the District 65 School Board entered into its first multi-year contract with Superintendent Devon Horton, which ran from July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023. The contract had five goals, one of which was an achievement goal that provided: “Increase student achievement for Black and Latino students and significantly reduce the achievement gap related to college and career readiness for reading and mathematics.”
While there was only one goal with an academic indicator, it was an indicator that set high expectations for students.
A second goal provided: “Ensure access to grade-level, Common Core Standards, aligned instruction and assessments for Tier 1 learning that are cognitively and culturally responsive to improving learning for all students.” There was not an indicator to measure the improvement in learning.
The contract also provided that by Oct. 1, 2020, “the Superintendent will prepare, for review and approval by the Board, refined and/or additional goals and a program for achievement of the goals within a recommended period. The program for achievement of the goals will also refine and identify in greater detail the indicators of student performance and academic achievement purposes. It is expected that this step will be completed by no later than December 15, 2020, and that all goals will be achieved within the period as established by the Board in consultation with the Superintendent … “
Horton’s 2022 contract. A second contract was entered into with Horton on March 14, 2022 that contract ran from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2026, thus extending his tenure at the district by three years. This contract contained five goals, the second of which provided an achievement goal. It provides: “Lead system-wide professional learning and implementation support of cognitively rigorous and culturally responsive instructional practices.” The “Indicators” for this goal were: “Culturally responsive curriculum will be adopted for ELA, Math, Science and Social Studies that is written, taught and assessed. At the end of each school year, there will be at least a 3% increase in the number of Black and Latinx students making expected gains in Reading and Math on MAP.”
A goal to meet expected gains in reading and math on MAP is, in essence, a goal to preserve the status quo, including existing achievement gaps. As the RoundTable reported at the time, it was a big step backward from the goal to significantly reduce the achievement gap related to college readiness that was contained in Horton’s 2019 contract.
The 2022 contract also had a goal related to student performance that focused on creating supportive environments that are intellectually and socially safe for learning. The Indicators were that the district will have two fully trained restorative practice trainers in each campus and restorative practices will be used properly Districtwide. “At the end of each school year there will be at least a 2% decrease in the number of students experiencing bullying.”
The trend in the last four superintendent contracts appears to be moving from a fairly comprehensive set of indicators in Goren’s 2017 contract that set high expectations, to indicators that set lower expectations in Horton’s 2019 contract and still lower ones in his 2022 contracts, and no express achievement expectations in Turner’s 2024 contract.
FOOTNOTES
* Marcilene Dutton’s article gives additional examples of “student performance” goals: student truancy shall be reduced; student attendance rates shall be increased; student suspensions shall be reduced; student graduation rates shall be increased; and student participation in co-curricular activities shall be increased.
Examples of “academic improvement goals are student academic performance shall be improved; student math performance shall be improved; student reading scores shall improve; student standardized testing scores shall improve; student grade point averages (GPA’s) will be increased.”
And, Dutton says, the contract must include indicators of measures on how attainment or non-attainment of the goals will be determined.
** Board of Education v. Jackson, 401 Ill. App. 3d 24 (1st Dist. 2011).
*** In Wynn v. Board of Education of School District No. 159, 815 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (N.D.Ill. 2011), a school district entered into a multi-year contract with a superintendent that provided that student performance and academic improvement goals shall be “established” by the mutual agreement of the superintendent and the school board at a specified date in the future. The court held that the contract did not meet the requirements on Section 10-23.8 “because that section does not only require that a performance-based contract ‘be linked to student performance and academic improvement.’ It additionally states that the performance goals and indicators must be included in the agreement: ‘Each performance-based contract shall include the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement …. Accordingly, the Contract’s general acknowledgment that ‘[s]tudent performance and academic improvement goals shall be linked to student performance and academic improvement,’ standing alone, does not satisfy the School Code; the Contract instead must actually identify ‘the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement.’” The court held that the contract was void.
See also: Hesbol v. Bd. of Educ. 14 F. Supp. 3rd 1101 (N.D. 2014) (“The plain language of the School Code also indicates that the “goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement” must be in a performance-based contract at the time of execution.”).
