Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Improvement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State education official outlines process, resources for schools in intensive support status
Summary
An Illinois State Board of Education supervisor told the Chicago Board of Education that intensive-status schools receive Title I School Improvement Grant funds, a third‑party needs assessment by AIR and a multi‑year planning and monitoring cycle; he detailed counts of district schools in each designation and timelines for planning and review.
Nick Heckel, supervisor for school district improvement at the Illinois State Board of Education, told the Chicago Board of Education on May 7 that schools placed in the state’s intensive support category receive targeted funds and a multi‑year process aimed at durable change.
Heckel said Title I Part A, Section 1003 School Improvement Grant funds are allocated to schools based on designation and that the American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducts a third‑party needs assessment for schools designated comprehensive or intensive. "This grant is done on a yearly basis," he said. "A more rigorous needs assessment is done by AIR."
Heckel explained designations used on the Illinois Report Card and why they matter to districts: exemplary (top 10 percent), commendable, targeted, comprehensive (bottom 5 percent) and intensive, a status applied when a comprehensive school has not exited improvement after the allotted cycle. "Starting in 2018 the state issued annual summative designations...In 2023 intensive designation status was added," he said. He provided counts for City of Chicago SD 299: 26 exemplary schools, about 325 commendable, 116 targeted, 107 comprehensive and 47 intensive (41 identified on the 2023 report card plus six added on report card 2024).
Heckel described the district and school roles and timelines for intensive schools: a planning year (the year designation is assigned) followed by multi‑year implementation with regular monitoring. "Report Card 2024 was the planning year for these schools," he said, and added that the state expects multiple years of implementation with report card checkpoints to determine exit from status.
On interventions, Heckel said the state provides on‑demand learning, technical assistance and a school improvement helpline and that schools must identify school leadership teams, stakeholder advisory groups (local school councils in CPS), and conduct root cause analyses. "School improvement is not about changing what kids do... It's about changing what the adults inside of those schools do with children," Heckel said.
Heckel summarized what a school needs assessment involves: staff surveys, classroom observations, staff focus groups (without administration present), student focus groups in middle/high schools and a principal interview; the full needs assessment reports he described run 60–70 pages and rate areas such as leadership and vision, curriculum and instruction, culture and climate and targeted instruction.
Heckel said the state maintains an approved learning partner list (48 approved providers statewide) and that CPS maintains a district list of 23 CPS‑approved learning partners. He also described monitoring expectations: intensive schools should present progress to their boards three times per year (September, January, May), though he and CPS staff are working on a CPS‑specific approach because of the district’s size.
Heckel closed by pointing board members to the ISBE school improvement website and offered his contact information and the state helpline for further questions.
Ending: Heckel told the board the state’s resources are intended to support continuous improvement and that districts and schools must sustain multi‑year change to exit intensive status. He encouraged board members to use available documents and the state helpline for follow‑up.
