Members of the Board of Education of Eadsdale Township High School District 86 on July 23 pressed administrators to set more ambitious, multi‑year academic targets and asked for the underlying student assessment data before finalizing summer 2025–26 goals.

Board members said they wanted "reach" goals rather than status‑quo targets and told building leaders to propose higher percentages by school. Superintendent Mike Locke and principals from both high schools described the process used to draft one‑year targets and agreed to return with audited baselines and multi‑year benchmarks.

The discussion began after public comment and a short staff presentation. Locke said the metrics were developed by district leaders earlier in the year and refined with principals this summer. "We spent time in the spring thinking about what exactly is the work we need to do this year that will either set the foundation or begin to turn the dial on those metrics," he said. He characterized the draft targets as measures the district felt it could "confident[ly] accomplish this year" while acknowledging they were not intended as "stretch or reach goals."

Several board members urged higher expectations. Board member Mary Leacotte said one‑year targets that merely maintain current performance were "disappointing," and asked that staff present three‑year targets with interim benchmarks so the board could see an upward trajectory. Board member Aaron (Barron) questioned deltas as small as 1 percentage point, arguing that larger, aspirational deltas encourage stronger performance.

Principals at both high schools accepted the challenge to increase targets if the board wants more ambitious goals. Bill Walsh, principal at Hinsdale Central, said of English proficiency, "I would say that 90%. I'm looking for proficiency rating of 90% of my English." Carrie Parente, principal at Hinsdale South, suggested a 65% target for the same measure at her school and emphasized that building teams produced the summer targets. Kurt Vonnie, assistant principal of instruction, confirmed the draft baselines were consistent with the data he had seen.

Board members also pressed for transparency and accuracy in the baselines. Several said the board had not seen complete spring 2025 ACT reports or AP preliminary data; Locke and staff agreed to provide the raw, de‑identified ACT dataset and other reports. "I would like that broad dataset and all of the reports so that we can make an informed decision on all of this," a board member said.

On next steps the board asked principals and district staff to: (1) verify the baselines using raw ACT/AP and Illinois report card data, (2) propose reach goals by building and by subgroup, (3) develop supporting implementation plans and quarterly benchmarks, and (4) return to the board with updated baselines and three‑year targets (the board requested a follow‑up in August). Superintendent Locke said the district will build out work plans with quarterly benchmarks and monitor progress with the board.

The board emphasized the distinction between discussion, direction and formal action: this meeting produced direction for staff to verify data and to return with revised targets but did not adopt final goals at the July 23 session.

The board also asked that the academic committee and building administrators refine growth measures (year‑to‑year comparisons) given the district's recent transition from SAT to ACT testing and other measurement changes.

The board and administrators repeatedly framed the conversation as collaborative: trustees said they wanted ambitious goals and committed staff support, while principals requested clarity about baselines and agreed to propose higher targets to be considered by the board.

The discussion included repeated requests that the district provide transparent, auditable datasets and clear documentation of how targets and deltas were calculated. Board members said they would not accept baselines that could not be replicated from the raw data supplied by ACT, the Illinois report card and district systems.

Ending: The board did not take a formal vote on the metrics on July 23. Administrators will return with verified data, building reach goals and implementation plans for board review at a future meeting; the board asked staff to present quarterly benchmarks so trustees and the public can track progress.