Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Performance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kaneland schools largely ‘commendable’; district moves up math curriculum review after mixed IAR results
Summary
Kaneland CUSD 302 officials reported mostly commendable state designations for the district but identified declines and subgroup concerns — notably at McDowell Elementary. The district said it will accelerate a math curriculum review, expand professional development and use MTSS interventions to address gaps.
Kaneland CUSD 302 officials on Monday reviewed the district's 2024 Illinois school report card and announced steps to address lagging proficiency in math and uneven subgroup performance.
Dr. Rolling and Dr. Mumm told the Board of Education that most schools earned a "commendable" designation from the Illinois State Board of Education, but McDowell Elementary received a "targeted" rating because students with disabilities performed below the district average. Dr. Mumm explained that ISBE uses a composite scale score (0–100) that blends proficiency, growth, science proficiency, chronic absenteeism and a climate‑survey completion metric.
The presentation highlighted a district‑wide proficiency gap in math and noted an apparent mismatch at some schools between proficiency and growth measures. "You can have students who didn’t hit the proficiency mark but still showed growth," Dr. Mumm said, describing how ISBE’s cohort‑based growth calculation can differ from a single‑year proficiency snapshot.
To address the trends, board members were told the district is moving up its planned math curriculum review (previously scheduled for 2028) and will propose a consistent math tool for board approval in April. The district plans targeted professional development, quicker PD "quick fixes" for vocabulary and test‑structure work, and expanded MTSS supports to provide short‑term interventions while longer curriculum changes are implemented.
Board members pressed staff for diagnostic work to isolate causes — curriculum, teacher turnover, cohort differences or testing timing. Dr. Mumm said the next step is to compare IAR subtests with district I‑Ready subtests to identify where cohorts hit plateaus and whether gaps stem from instructional practice, tool alignment or conceptual foundations.
The presentation also noted the high‑school score composition is changing with the state’s move from SAT to ACT testing; staff said the district will embed ACT‑style practice and align curriculum vertically so earlier grades better prepare students for college‑and‑career benchmarks.
The district did not propose formal action at the meeting; administrators said further data dives and a follow‑up presentation will be scheduled this winter.
