District 57 superintendent proposes outcome-based goals for math, reading and attendance; board asks for clearer measures

Superintendent Dr. Mary Gore proposed an outcome-based rubric for her 2025–26 evaluation tying portions of her rating to student growth in reading and math and to district chronic absenteeism, then invited board feedback on the number and specificity of goals. "Anything 70% or higher would be beyond what MAP defines as a high quality outcome," Gore said, describing a four-point rubric in which a score of 4 in reading growth would mean "70% on average of our students are obtaining or exceeding their growth goals on their MAP." She told the board the MAP assessment is given three times a year and that MAP has recently renormed its scales.

Why it matters: The board, acting as Gore’s employer, must decide how to weigh student outcome measures when rating the superintendent. Board members said metrics could make evaluations more objective but asked for protections against counting results affected by factors outside district control.

Board members expressed mixed views about the proposal and requested clearer interim progress reporting. Member Faye thanked Gore for the context and asked the superintendent to show baseline numbers and how the rubric would change a rating year-to-year. Member Chris (board member who spoke using his first name) said boards should set ambitious goals: "You should have goals that are put out there that you're not a 100% sure you're gonna achieve," but asked for a clearer link between stated activities and the expected outcomes. Multiple members warned that chronic absenteeism and assessment scores are influenced heavily by circumstances beyond the superintendent’s direct control. One board member said chronic absenteeism was "98% outside of the control of you, your administration, the staff." Gore acknowledged that spring data would often arrive after the statutory time for completing an evaluation and proposed boards could apply those measures to the following year's evaluation instead.

Details and supporting context: Gore proposed tying the scores to grade-span MAP growth (students in grades 2–8) with bands (example: 70%+ = score of 4; 60–69.9% = score of 3). She said MAP renorming shifted the district’s comparative percentages, and presented historical chronic absenteeism rates of 11.3% (most recent year), 15.5% (prior year) and 10.2% (earlier pre-pandemic year). She recommended that a 4 for absenteeism reflect under 10% chronic absenteeism; a 3 would be 10–12.9%.

Board direction and next steps: The board did not take a final vote on the superintendent goals. After discussion the board agreed to treat Gore’s packet as a first read and asked for a revised set of goals and for the first quarterly update to include clearer "pathways"—the specific activities and interim progress indicators the district will use to pursue the goals. Gore agreed to return with a revised draft and with more explicit progress monitoring for the October/first quarterly update. Several board members suggested the board, separately and collectively, prepare guidance about how they will interpret the evidence when they make a summative evaluation.

Ending: Gore said she would refine the goals after considering tonight’s feedback and present them again next month for board action. She emphasized that the board’s final summative rating would take into account unforeseen incidents and the broad context of district work.